Hasnia P.

Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

CHAPTER VI
CHAPTER V

THE CHARACTERIZATION OF CONFLICTS RULES

NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF CONFLICT

RULES

Conflict rules are the provisions found in a

countrys own law which govern factual situations possessed
of a foreign element.
CONFLICTS RULES DISTINGUISHED FROM PURELY
INTERNAL RULES
PURELY INTERNAL LAW
Governs a purely domestic
problem, one without any
foreign element
Directly answers a given
problem

CONFLICT LAW
Applies when the factual
situation involves a foreign
element.
Merely indirectly responds by
indicating whether internal or
foreign law is to be applied

The one-sided rule (which indicates

Philippine internal law will apply).

when

Example: Art. 15, Civil Code: Laws

relating to family rights and duties, or to
the status, condition, and legal capacity
of persons are binding upon citizens of
the Philippines, even though living
abroad.
(2)

The ultimate purpose of characterization is to

enable the forum to select the proper law.
Factors which
characterization:
1.
2.
3.

give

rise

to

the

problem

of

Different legal systems attach to the same legal

term different meanings.
Different legal systems may contain ideas or
conceptions completely unknown to one another.
Different legal systems apply different principles
for the solution of problems which, in general term,
are a common nature.

4 STEPS IN CHARACTERIZATION:

Kinds of Conflicts Rules:

(1)

Characterization is simply the process of determining under

what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. It is the
process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the
kind of question specified in the conflicts rule.

The all-sided rule (which indicates when foreign

law is to be applied)
Example: Art. 16 (2), Civil Code:
However, in testate and testamentary
successions both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount
of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall
be regulated by the national law of the
person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of
the country wherein said property may
be found.

COMPOSITION OF CONFLICT RULES:

(1)

The Factual Situation

- the set of facts
presenting a conflicts problem
- the situation that
the provision wants to govern

(2)

The Point of Contact / Connecting Factor - the

law of the country with which the factual situation
is most intimately connected
legal consequence of the
facts
what law to apply

Example: In the conflicts rule capacity to succeed is

governed by the law of the nation of the decedent (Art.
1039, Civil Code):
a. Capacity to succeed is the factual situation indicating
that a person is dead, and someone alleges a right or
capacity to inherit from the former.
b. Law of the nation of the decedent is the point of
contact. This depends upon several factors:
i) nationality
iii) situs
v) intention of the parties;
ii) domicile;
iv)
place
celebration;
vi) law of the forum

of

1.

The characterization of the factual situation

This is the process of assigning the proven facts
into their particular category.
Example: Decide what field of law the given sets
of facts belong to know what law to apply. Do the
facts constitute a problem of succession, or a
problem of marital property rights or of contracts?
GIBBS vs. GOVERNMENT of the PHILIPPINES
59 PHIL. 293
Facts: Gibbs and his wife were American
nationals, domiciled in California. They were
married in Ohio and came to the Philippines,
where they acquired lands. In 1929, Mrs. Gibbs
died in California. Mr. Gibbs was appointed
administrator in intestate proceedings instituted in
the Manila Court. In 1930, he asked the court to
adjudicate to him these lands, not by virtue of
succession but because under California law the
husband acquired the community property, in
which the wife in her lifetime had only an inchoate
interest or expectancy (which is extinguished upon
her death). This was granted by the Court of First
Instance of Manila, upon proof of California law.
The register of deeds refused to register transfer
of title, on the ground that the corresponding
inheritance tax had nit been paid. Gibbs refused
to pay alleging that this was not a case of
succession. He argued that: (1) under Article 15
of the Civil Code, the conjugal right of a California
wife in community real property in the Philippines
is a personal right; and (2) that if this was a case
of succession, under Article 16, paragraph 2,
California law should also apply since the person
whose succession was in question was a
California national.
Ruling: (1) Article 15 treats of purely personal
relations and status and capacity for juristic acts.
This is not such a question for this one relates to
property, which should be governed by Article 16.
California law is only resorted to determine
questions of status.
(2) Gibbs cannot be heard to say that there is a
legal succession under the law of the Philippines,
and no legal succession under the law of
California.
It seems clear that the second
paragraph of Article 16 applies only when a legal
or testamentary succession has taken place in the
Philippines in accordance with the law of the
Philippine Islands, and the foreign law is consulted
only in the regard to the order of succession or the
extent of successional right. In other words, the
second paragraph of Article 16 can be invoked
only when the deceased was vested with a
descendible interest in property within the
jurisdiction of the Philippine Islands.
The

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

limitations to the pending claims based on a

foreign law. While there are several kinds of
"borrowing statutes," one form provides that an
action barred by the laws of the place where it
accrued, will not be enforced in the forum even
though the local statute has not run against it .
Section 48 of our Code of Civil Procedure is of this
kind. Said Section provides:

descendible interest of Eva Johnson Gibbs in the

lands aforesaid was transmitted to her heirs by
virtue of inheritance.
2. The determination of the conflicts rule to be applied;
3. The characterization of the point of contact or the
connecting factor;
NOTE: In case of contracting by telephone, fax or by mail,
what law will govern?

"If by the laws of the state or country where the

cause of action arose, the action is barred, it is
also barred in the Philippines Islands."

A. (Philippine jurisprudence) place of offer Article

1319 Civil Code
Manifestation Theory.
B. (US jurisprudence) place of acceptance
Expedition Theory.
C. (German jurisprudence) place of reception of
the acceptance Reception
Theory.

Section 48 has not been repealed or amended by

the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article 2270 of
said Code repealed only those provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedures as to which were
inconsistent with it. There is no provision in the
Civil Code of the Philippines, which is inconsistent
with or contradictory to Section 48 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

Example: In the Philippines, I mailed my offer to you while

you were in the US. Then I went to Germany. You mailed
your letter of acceptance to me in Germany.

In the light of the 1987 Constitution, however,

Section 48 cannot be enforced ex proprio vigore
insofar as it ordains the application in this
jurisdiction of Section 156 of the Amiri Decree No.
23 of 1976.

PARAS: Apply the law of the forum. Thus, if the case is filed
in the Philippines, apply Philippine Law.
4. The characterization of the problem as procedural or
substantive;

The courts of the forum will not enforce any

foreign claim obnoxious to the forum's public. To
enforce the one-year prescriptive period of the
Amiri Decree No. 23 of 1976 as regards the claims
in question would contravene the public policy on
the protection to labor.

Sir de la Banda: problematic only as to the issues of

Prescription and Statute of Frauds

PROCEDURAL MATTERS - governed by the

law of the forum
SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS sometimes we
apply foreign law
CADALIN VS POEAS ADMINISTRATOR
238 SCRA 721

Issue: whether it is the Bahrain law on

prescription of action based on the Amiri Decree
No. 23 of 1976 or a Philippine law on prescription
that shall be the governing law.

Rule regarding the statute of frauds:

If the Statute of Frauds forbids the creation of
obligations, then it shall be considered as SUBSTANTIVE.
On the other hand, if the Statute of Frauds forbids only the
execution of obligations, then it shall be considered as
PROCEDURAL. If we examine our Civil Code, our Statute of
Frauds merely forbids the execution of obligations, thus it is
PROCEDURAL.
TOTALITY APPROACH :
1.

Ruling: Article 156 of the Amiri Decree No. 23 of

1976 provides:
"A claim arising out of a contract of employment
shall not be actionable after the lapse of one year
from the date of the expiry of the contract"
As a general rule, a foreign procedural law will not
be applied in the forum. Procedural matters, such
as service of process, joinder of actions, period
and requisites for appeal, and so forth, are
governed by the laws of the forum. This is true
even if the action is based upon a foreign
substantive law.

2.

first get the law intended by the parties

to govern the contract;
then, proceed to apply that intended
law in its totality including its periods of
prescripton and its Statute of Frauds.

EXCEPTION: If the subject matter governs property located

in the Philippines, our own law on Prescription and our own
Statute of Frauds must apply.
THEORIES ON CHARACTERIZATION:
1.

Lex Foil Theory the forum merely considers its

own concept, its own characterization.

A law on prescription of actions is sui generis in

Conflict of Laws in the sense that it may be viewed
either as procedural or substantive, depending on
the characterization given such a law.

2.

Lex Causae Theory - exact opposite of the Lex

situs Theory. Here, we are supposed to follow the
characterization of the foreign state which is the
principal point of contact.

Thus in Bournias v. Atlantic Maritime Company,

supra, the American court applied the statute of
limitations of New York, instead of the
Panamanian law, after finding that there was no
showing that the Panamanian law on prescription
was intended to be substantive. Being considered
merely a procedural law even in Panama, it has to
give way to the law of the forum on prescription of
actions.

3.

Universal Analytical Theory (a.k.a, Comparative

Approach Theory) characterization comes
Only after a general comparative
analytical study of the jurisprudence of
all the states involved.

4.

Dual Theory of Lex fori and Lex causae only

two concepts enter into the picture-the
characterization of the lex fori and that of the lex
causae.

5.

Autonomous Theory the forum considers the

characterization of the country referred to in the
conflicts rule of the lex causae. Hence, if the
characterization in the forum State A points to
State B as the lex causae, and the conflicts rule in
State B refers to State C as the proper point of
contact, it is the characterization in State C which
must be used by State A.

However, the characterization of a statute into a

procedural or substantive law becomes irrelevant
when the country of the forum has a "borrowing
statute." Said statute has the practical effect of
treating the foreign statute of limitation as one of
substance (Goodrich, Conflict of Laws 152-153
[1938]). A "borrowing statute" directs the state
of the forum to apply the foreign statute of

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

6.

Totality Theory get the characterization

intended by the parties or get the law intended by
the parties to apply, and then proceed to apply the
characterization given by that intended law. This
is otherwise known as the totality approach
-characterization of parties
-law intended by the parties

NATIONALITY
Membership in an ethnic,
social, racial, and cultural
group
Includes
not
only
citizenship, but all those
owing allegiance to a
particular
state,
like
subjects , or the inhabitants
of colonies.

CHAPTER VII

For

purposes of Private international Law,

however, no such distinction exists. Citizens are
referred to as nationals, and vise-versa.

THE VARIOUS THEORIES ON STATUS AND CAPACITY

STATUS is the place of an individual in society, and consists

of personal qualities and relationships, more or less
permanent, with which the state and the community are
concerned.

CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENS :

CAPACITY is merely a part of status, and may be defined as

the sum total of his rights and obligations.

1.

NATURAL BORN Those who are citizens of the

Philippines from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. They can hold constitutional positions.

2.

NATURALIZED Citizens who are not naturalborn citizens; those who become such through
judicial proceedings. They enjoy the right to vote
and to occupy certain positions.

3.

DUAL CITIZENS Enjoy less rights than

naturalized citizens.

4.

RESIDENT ALIENS No political rights

The Civil Code distinguishes two kinds of capacity:

capacity to act (active capacity)
power to do acts with legal affects;
juridical capacity (passive capacity)
the fitness to be the subject of
legal relations

1.
2.

CHARACTERISTICS OF STATUS:
1.
2.
3.

4.

Status is conferred principally by the state not

by the individual.
Status is a matter of public or social interest.
Status being a concept of social order,
cannot easily be terminated at the mere will
or desire of the parties concerned.
Status is generally supposed to have a
universal character; when a certain status is
created by the law of one country, it is
GENERALLY judicially recognized all over
the world.

Personal Law the law that attaches to an individual,

wherever he may go -a law that generally governs his status,
his capacity, his family relations, and the consequences of
his actuations; this personal law may be his national law or
his domiciliary law or the law of the situs, depending upon
the theory applied and enforced in the forum.

5. STATELESS INDIVIDUALS Found in the Family

Code
A person may become stateless by any of the
following means;
a. he may have been deprived of his citizenship
for any cause;
b. he may have renounced his nationality by
certain acts, express or implied;
c. he may have voluntarily asked for a release from
his original state;
d. he may have been born in a state which
recognizes only the principle of jus sanguinis of
parents whose law recognizes only the principle of
just soli.
The personal law of stateless individuals shall be;
the law of the domicile (habitual residence); or
the law of the place of temporary residence

Note

Defects of Personal Law:

Different
differently.

countries

CITIZENSHIP
Membership in a political
society

that this classification is important only in

Political Law.

understood

personal

law
In Private International
classifications, namely:

Law,

there

are

only

Theories on Personal law:

(1) Nationality Theory by virtue of which the status and
capacity of an individual are generally governed by the law
of his nationality. (This is also called the PERSONAL
Theory)
(2) Domiciliary Theory Which regards the law of the
domicile as the proper determinative law on status and
capacity. (This is also known as the TERRITORIAL Theory)
(3) Situs Theory which views the particular place or situs
an event or transaction as generally the controlling law. (This
has also been referred to as the ECLECTIC theory).

1. CITIZENS
2. ALIENS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:
ARTICLE IV, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Citizenship
Section 1.
Philippines :

The following are citizens of the

(1)
Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2)
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;

CHAPTER VIII
THE NATIONALITY THEORY

NATIONALITY THEORY - This is the theory by virtue of

which the status and capacity of an individual are generally
governed by the law of his nationality.

(3)
Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
(4)
law.

Those who are naturalized in accordance with

Section 2.
Natural-born citizens are those who
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in

accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3.
Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4.
Citizens of the Philippines who marry
aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have
renounced it.

PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
3 ways of Naturalization:
1. By Judicial Process
2. By Legislative Naturalization
3. By Administrative Naturalization
A. JUDICIAL PROCESS OF NATURALIZATION

Section 5.
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

governed by CA 473
DE LA ROSA CASE

WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES:

PROCEDURE:

Section 1.
Philippines :

1. Filing of declaration of intention 1 year prior to the filing of

the petition with the Office of the Solicitor General. The
following are exempt from filing declaration of intention:

The following are citizens of the

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at

the time of the adoption of this constitution;

This is common in all constitutions 1935, 1973 &

1987
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;

The

Philippine
Constitution adopts the JUS
SANGUINIS THEORY or citizenship by blood.
One follows the citizenship of his parents.

(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of

Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and

This provision is no longer of value because those

born before this date aare already at least 31
years old. By now, they have already elected
citizenship.

3 QUESTIONS:
1. When must the mother be Filipino?

The mother must be Filipino at the time

of MARRIAGE.
2. When must one elect citizenship?

One must elect within a reasonable time

a. Born in the Philippines and have received their

primary & secondary education in public or private
schools recognized by the Government & not
limited to any race or nationality.
b. Resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more
before the filing of the petition, and enrolled his
children in elementary & high schools recognized
by the Government & not limited to any race or
nationality.
c. Widow & minor children of an alien who has
declared his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines & dies before he is actually
naturalized.
2. Filing of the petition in the RTC 1 year after the filing of the
declaration of intention.
3. Publication of the petition in the OG or in a newspaper of
general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks.
This is a jurisdictional requirement.
4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire
proceedings.
5. Hearing of the petition 6 months after the publication.
6. Promulgation of the petition.
7. Rehearing after 2 years.

upon reaching the age of majority.

8. Oath taking & issuance of certificate of Naturalization.

to jurisprudence, what is
reasonable is a question of fact,
depending
upon
the
peculiar
circumstances of each case. In one
instance, 3 years from reaching the age
of majority [21 years old] is still
reasonable time. But generally, 5 years
would be unreasonable.

The judicial process takes 3 1/2 years to accomplish plus

the 10 year residency requirement. So, all in all, it will take
13 years.

According

IN RE: APPLICATION
316 SCRA 1
This case is about a guy who took and passed the
bar. He is also an accountant. He elected when he
was 35 years old. The SC said it is already too
late. 14 years after reaching the age of majority is
already too late!
3. How should one elect Philippine Citizenship?
a. By filing a sworn statement in the Civil Registrar
if in the Philippines;
b. By filing a sworn statement with Diplomatic or
Consular Officials if in a foreign country
In CO VS HRET, The SC said that Co elected
Philippine citizenship INFORMALLY. Now, in the
CASE OF MALLARI, Mallari invoked the CO
case. However, the SC said there is no such thing
as informal election.
RULE IS: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
INFORMAL OR IMPLIED ELECTION OF

In REPUBLIC VS DE LA ROSA, the SC noted several

irregularities which punctuated the petition & the
proceedings in the application for naturalization of Juan
Frivaldo. Thus, the SC held that the procedure for
naturalization must strictly be complied with. Naturalization is
a privilege granted by law. Even if the applicant is a former
Filipino citizen, he must follow the procedure for
naturalization strictly.
B. LEGISLATIVE NATURALIZATION:
Congress passes a law conferring Philippine
citizenship to certain individuals. This is discretionary on
Congress. This is usually conferred on an alien who has
made outstanding contributions to the country.
During Marcos time, some missionaries were the
beneficiaries of this, however, this was abused.
This
legislative
naturalization
cannot
be
challenged under the Constitution because the Constitution
states : those naturalized in accordance with law. It did
not specify what law. Thus, it does not violate the equal
protection clause.
C. ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION:

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

This is governed by RA 9139, THE

ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION LAW OF 2000 which
grants Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings to
aliens born & residing in the Philippines.
This is administrative because there is a Special
Committee headed by the SolGen, with the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs or his representative, and the National
Security Adviser as members. This committee has the power
to approve, deny or reject applications for naturalization
under this act.
PURPOSE: To do away with proceedings that lasts for so
many years.
QUALIFICATIONS:
In addition to the qualifications set by previous
laws, the applicant must :
1. be born in the Philippines & residing therein since birth.
This is the most important requirement.
2. not be less than 18 years of age, at the time of filing the
petition.
PROCEDURE:
1. Pay P 40,000 upon filing of the petition
2. Publication
3. The committee shall consider & review
4. If the committee approves the application, the applicant is
required to pay P50,000.
5. Oath taking, pay another P50,000
Sir de la banda: All in all, the applicant pays P140,000. this
is citizenship for sale!
The Principle of Reciprocity applies.
STATUS OF ALIEN WIFE & MINOR CHILDREN:
Q: Suppose the alien husband obtains Philippine citizenship
through this process, what happens to his wife & minor
children?
A: The wife & mior children shall be benefited. They only
have to ask for the cancellation of their ACR. However, they
should pay P60,000 each.

Section 3. Qualifications. - Subject to the provisions of the

succeeding section, any person desiring to avail of the
benefits of this Act must meet the following qualifications:
(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and
residing therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years
of age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and
believes in the underlying principles of the Constitution, and
must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of
residence in the Philippines in his relation with the duly
constituted government as well as with the community in
which he/she is living;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and
secondary education in any public school or private
educational institution dully recognized by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of
the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to
any race or nationality: Provided, That should he/she have
minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled
them in similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business,
profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives
income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married
and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided,
however, That this shall not apply to applicants who are
college degree holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason
of their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak
Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
Section 4. Disqualifications, - The following are not
qualified to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under this Act:

STATUS OF ALIEN HUSBAND & MINOR CHILDREN:

Q: Suppose the wife acquires naturalization, what is the
status of her alien husband & minor children?
A: The husband will not benefit from the wifes naturalization
but the minor children will be benefited upon compliance with
the requirements prescribed by law.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9139

June 08, 2001

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ACQUISITION OF

PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN ALIENS BY
ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The
Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State shall control
and regulate the admission and integration of aliens into its
territory and body politic including the grant of citizenship to
aliens. Towards this end, aliens born and residing in the
Philippines may be granted Philippine citizenship by
administrative proceedings subject to certain requirements
dictated by national security and interest.

(a) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with

any association of group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety
of violence, personal assault or assassination for the
success or predominance of their ideas;
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases;
(f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who
have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
(g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war,
during the period of such war; and
(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do
not grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or
subjects thereof.
Section 5. Petition for Citizenship. - (1) Any person desiring
to acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall file with
the Special Committee on Naturalization created under

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

Section 6 hereof, a petition of five (5) copies legibly typed

and signed, thumbmarked and verified by him/her, with the
latter's passport-sized photograph attached to each copy of
the petition, and setting forth the following:
(a) The petitioner's name and surname, and any other name
he/she has used or by which he/she is known;
(b) The petitioner's present and former places of residence;
(c) The petitioner's place and date of birth, the names and
citizenship of his/her parents and their residences;
(d) The petitioner's trade, business, profession
occupation, and if married, also that of his/her spouse;

or

(e) Whether the petitioner is single or married or his/her

marriage is annulled. If married, petitioner shall state the
date and place of his/her marriage, and the name, date of
birth, birthplace, citizenship and residence of his/her spouse;
and if his marriage is annulled, the date of decree of
annulment of marriage and the court which granted the
same;

government and civics are taught and are part of the

curriculum; and
(h) If gainfully employed, the income tax return for the past
three (3) years.
Section 6. Special Committee on Naturalization. - There
shall be constituted a Special Committee on Naturalization
herein referred to as the "Committee", with the Solicitor
General as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or his
representative, and the National Security Adviser, as
members, with the power to approve, deny or reject
applications for naturalization as provided in this Act.
The Committee shall meet, as often as practicable, to
consider applications for naturalization. For this purpose, the
chairman and members shall receive an honorarium of Two
thousand pesos (P2,000.00) and One thousand five hundred
pesos (P1,500.00), respectively, per meeting attended.

(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's

birth certificate;

Section 7. Powers/Functions of the Special Committee on

Naturalization. - An alien who believes that he has all the
qualifications, and none of the disqualifications, may file an
application for naturalization with the secretariat of the
Special Committee on Naturalization, and a processing fee
of Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00). Thereafter, the
petition shall be stamped to indicate the date of filing and a
corresponding docket number. Within fifteen (15) days from
the receipt of the petition, the Committee shall determine
whether the petition is complete in substance and in form. If
such petition is complete, the Committee shall immediately
publish pertinent portions of the petition indicating the name,
qualifications and other personal circumstances of the
applicant, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation, and have copies of the
petition posted in any public or conspicuous area. The
Committee shall immediately furnish the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA), the Bureau of Immigration (BI), the
civil registrar of the petitioner's place of residence and tile
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) copies of the petition
and its supporting documents. These agencies shall have
copies of the petition posted in any public or conspicuous
area in their buildings, offices and premises, and shall, within
thirty (30) days from the receipt of the petition, submit to the
Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has any
derogatory record on file or any such relevant and material
information which might be adverse to petitioner's application
for citizenship.

(b) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's

alien certificate of registration and native born certificate of
residence;

If the petition is found by the Committee to be wanting in

substance and form, the petition shall be dismissed without
prejudice.

(c) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's

marriage certified, if married, or the death certificate of his
spouse, if widowed, or the court decree annulling his
marriage, if such was the fact;

Section 8. Approval or Disapproval of the Petition. - Within

sixty (60) days from receipt of the report of the agencies
which were furnished a copy of the petition or the date of the
last publication of the petition, whichever comes in later, the
Committee shall consider and review all relevant and
material information it has received pertaining to the petition,
and may, for the purpose call the petitioner for interview to
ascertain his/her identity, the authenticity of the petition and
its annexes, and to determine the truthfulness of the
statements and declarations made in the petition and its
annexes.

(f) If the petitioner has children, the name, date and

birthplace and residences of his/her children ;
(g) A declaration that the petitioner possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this
Act;
(h) A declaration that the petitioner shall never be a public
charge; and
(i) A declaration that it is the petitioner's true and honest
intention to acquire Philippine citizenship and to renounce
absolutely and forever any prince, potentate, State or
sovereign, and particularly the country of which the applicant
is a citizen or subject.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by:

(d) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of birth

certificates, alien certificate of registration or native born
certificate of residence if any, of petitioner's minor children,
wherever applicable;
(e) Affidavit of financial capacity by the petitioner, and sworn
statements on the good moral character of the petitioner by
at least two (2) Filipino citizens of good reputation in his/her
place of residence stating that they have personally known
the petitioner for at least a period of ten (10) years and that
said petitioner has in their own opinion all the qualifications
necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not
in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act;
(f) A medical certificate that petitioner is not a user of
prohibited drugs or otherwise a drug dependent and that
he/she is not afflicted with acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS);
(g) School diploma and transcript of records of the petitioner
in the schools he attended in the Philippines. Should the
petitioner have minor children, a certification that his children
are enrolled in a school where Philippine history,

If the Committee shall have received any information

adverse to the petition, the Committee shall allow the
petitioner to answer, explain or refute the information.
Thereafter, if the Committee believes, in view of the facts
before it, that the petitioner has all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications required for Philippine
citizenship under this Act, it shall approve the petition and
henceforth, notify the petitioner of the fact of such approval.
Otherwise, the Committee shall disapprove the same.
Section 9. Decree of Naturalization and Naturalization
Processing Fee. -Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of
the notice of the approval of his/her petition, the applicant
shall pay to the Committee a naturalization fee of One
hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) payable as follows:

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the approval of the

petition and Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon the
taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, forthwith, a certificate of naturalization shall be
issued. Within sixty (60) days from the issuance of the
certificate, the petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance in
the proper forum upon proof of payment of the required
naturalization processing fee and certificate of naturalization.
Should the applicant fail to take the abovementioned oath of
allegiance within said period of time, the approval of the
petition shall be deemed abandoned.
Section 10. Duty of the Bureau of Immigration. - Within five
(5) days after the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance
as required in the preceding section, the BI shall forward a
copy of the petitioner's oath to the proper local civil registrar.
Thereafter, the BI shall cancel the alien certificates of
registration of the applicant.
Section 11. Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. After the approval of the petition for administrative
naturalization in cancellation of applicant's alien certificate of
registration, applicant's alien lawful wife and minor children
may file a petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of
registration with the Committee subject to the payment of the
filing fee of Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) and
naturalization fee of Forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00)
payable as follows: Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00)
upon the approval of the petition and Twenty thousand
pesos (P20,000.00) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines.
Section 12. Status of Alien Husband and Minor Children.
- If the applicant is a married woman, the approval of her
petition for administrative naturalization will not benefit her
alien husband but her minor children may file a petition for
cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the
BI subject to the requirements of existing laws.
Section 13. Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization.
- The Special Committee may cancel certificates of
naturalization issued under this Act in the following cases:
(a) If it finds that the naturalized person or his duly
authorized representative made any false statement or
misrepresentation or committed any violation of law, rules
and regulations in connection with the petition for
naturalization, or if he otherwise obtains Philippine
citizenship fraudulently or illegally, the certificate of
naturalization shall be cancelled;
(b) If the naturalized person or his wife, or any or his minor
children who acquire Filipino citizenship by virtue of his
naturalization shall, within five (5) years next following the
grant of Philippine citizenship, establish permanent
residence in a foreign country, that individual's certificate of
naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or
revoked: Provided, That the fact of such person's remaining
for more than one (1) year in his country of origin, or two (2)
years in any foreign country, shall be considered prima facie
evidence of intent to permanently reside therein;
(c) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired
citizenship allows himself or herself to be used as a dummy
in violation of any constitutional or legal provision requiring
Philippine citizenship as a condition for the exercise, use or
enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege, the certificate of
naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or
revoked; and
(d) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with acquired
citizenship commits any act inimical to national security, the
certificate of naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be
cancelled or revoked.
In case the naturalized person holds any hereditary title, or
belong to any order of nobility, he shall make an express
renunciation of his title or membership in this order of nobility
before the Special Committee or its duly authorized
representative, and such renunciation shall be included in
the records of his application for citizenship.

Section 14. Penalties. - Any person who shall fraudulently

make, falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid any
person to do the same, or who shall purposely aid and assist
in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering a
naturalization certificate issued under this proceeding for the
purpose of making use thereof, or in order that the same
may be used by another person or persons, and any person
who shall purposely aid and assist another in obtaining a
naturalization certificate in violation of this Act, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,OOO.OO) and by imprisonment for not more
than five (5) years, and in the case that the person convicted
is a naturalized citizen, his certificate of naturalization shall, if
not earlier cancelled by the Special Committee, be ordered
cancelled.
Section 15. Any person who failed to register his/her birth
with the concerned city or municipal civil registrar may,
within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, file a
petition for the acquisition of the Philippine citizenship:
Provided, That the applicant possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications under this Act and subject
to the requirements of existing laws.
Section 16. Special Disposition of the Filing Fee. - An
amount equivalent to twenty five percent (25%) of the filing
fee to be paid by the applicants pursuant to Section 7 hereof
shall accrue to the University of the Philippines Law Center
and another twenty-five percent (25%) shall be allotted for
the publication of the Journal of the House of
Representatives. Said amount shall be treated as receipts
automatically appropriated.
Section 17. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The
Special Committee on Naturalization is hereby authorized to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be needed for
the proper implementation of the provisions of this Act.
Section 18. Repealing Clause. -All provisions of existing
laws, orders, decrees, rules and regulations contrary to or
inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Section 19. Separability CIause. - If any part, section or
provision of this Act is declared invalid or unconstitutional,
the part, section or provision not affected thereby shall
continue to be in force and effect.
Section 20. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect
after fifteen (15) days following its publication in at least two
(2) newspapers of general circulation.
WHO ARE NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS?
Section 2.
Natural-born citizens are those who
are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.

Q: Suppose I am a natural-born Filipino citizen, I acquire

foreign citizenship & I go back to Filipino citizenship. What
am I, a natural-born or a naturalized citizen?
ROMUALDEZ CASE If a natural-born Filipino citizen
loses his Philippine citizenship and reacquires it by
REPATRIATION, he shall be considered as a NATURALBORN CITIZEN again. If he reacquires it through any other
means, like by naturalization, he shall be considered as a
NATURALIZED citizen.
Q: What about people who elected Philippine citizenship
prior to the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution whose mother
is Filipino and father an alien?
CO VS ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL He shall be considered
as natural-born. The law has retroactive application.

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

HOW MAY CITIZENSHIP BE LOST OR REACQUIRED?

Section 3.
Philippine citizenship may be lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law.
LOSS OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP

a. the Republic of the Philippines has a defensive

and/or offensive pact or alliance with the said
foreign country; or
b. the said foreign country maintains armed forces
on Philippine territory with the consent of the
Republic of the Philippines.
BENGZON III VS HRET
May 7, 2001

1. by naturalization in foreign countries;

2. by express renunciation of citizenship;
YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
169 SCRA 364
Petitioners own compliance reveals that he was
originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971,
valid for 5 years and renewed for the same period
upon presentment before the proper Portuguese
consular office. Despite his naturalization as a
Philippine citizen on February 10, 1978, on July
21, 1981, petitioner applied for and was issued a
Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. While still citizen
of the Philippines who had renounced, upon his
naturalization, absolute and forever allegiance
and fidelity to my foreign prince, potentate, state or
sovereignty and pledged to maintain true faith
and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
he declared his nationality as Portuguese in
commercial documents he signed. To the mind of
the Court, the foregoing acts considered together
constitute an express renunciation of petitioners
Philippine
citizenship
acquired
through
naturalization. Express renunciation was held to
mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly
and explicitly and no left to inference or
implication.
Petitioner, with full knowledge and legal capacity,
after having renounced Portuguese citizenship
upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen
resumed or required his prior status as a
Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his
Portuguese passport and represent himself as
such in official documents even after he had
become a naturalized Philippine citizen. Such
resumption or requisition of Portuguese citizenship
is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance of
Philippine citizenship.
Philippine citizenship, it must be
stressed, is not a commodity or ware to be
displayed when required and suppressed when
convenient.
AZNAR vs. COMELEC
185 SCRA 703
Considering the fact that admittedly
Osmena was both Filipino and an American, the
mere fact that he has a Certificate starting that he
is an American does not mean that he is not still a
Filipino. In the case of Osmena the Certification
that he is an American does not mean that he is
not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both
nationalities or citizenships. Indeed, there is no
express renunciation here of Philippine citizenship
must be express, it stands to reason that there
can be no such loss of Philippine citizenship when
there is no renunciation, either express or
implied
3. by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining
twenty one years of age or more: Provided, however, That a
Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any
manner with the Republic of the Philippines is at war with
country;
4. rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the
armed forces of a foreign country; Provided. That the
rendering of service to, or to acceptance of such
commission, in the armed forces of a foreign country, and
the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with the
consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a
Filipino of his citizenship if either of the following
circumstances is present.

HELD: The act of repatriation allows the person to

recover or return to, his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship. Thus, respondent Cruz, a former
natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine
citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps,
was deemed to have recovered his natural-born status
when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through
repatriation.
5. by cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
6. by having been declared by competent authority, a deserter
of the Philippine armed forces in
time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or
amnesty has been granted; and,
7. a woman who marries an alien, if by her act or omission, she
is deemed under the law to have
renounced her Philippine citizenship
NOTE: The law on prescription & res judicata NEVER applies
in Naturalization Proceedings.
REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
1. BY NATURALIZATION, provided that the applicant
possesses none of the disqualifications prescribed for
naturalization.
Naturalization - Is the process of acquiring the citizenship of
another country. In its strict sense, it is a judicial process,
where formalities of the law have to be complied with
including a judicial hearing and approval of the petition.
ATTRIBUTES:
a. The requisite conditions for naturalization are laid down by
Congress; courts cannot change or modify them.
b. Only foreigners may be naturalized.
c. Citizenship is not a right, it is a privilege.
d. Just as the state may denationalize its own citizens; so
may naturalization be revoked, by the cancellation of
the certificate of naturalization.
e. Naturalization demands allegiance to our Constitution,
laws, and government.
f. Naturalization is a proceeding in rem and therefore
jurisdiction over the entire world is acquired by
publication.
GUIDING PRICIPLES:
1. The right to enact a naturalization law is an attribute of
sovereignty
2. Aliens cannot demand to be naturalized as a matter of
right.
3. Doubts in the application of naturalization laws are
resolved against the applicant and in favor of the State.
4. Res judicata and the principle of representation are not
applicable in naturalization proceedings.
QUALIFICATIONS:
a. The petitioner must not be less than 21 years of age on
the date of the hearing of the petition;
This qualification has not been amended by RA
6809, which lowers the age of majority to 18 years, because
if it were so, then the law should have put the petitioner
must be at the age of majority on the date of the hearing of
the petition.
b. He must have, as a rule, resided in the Philippines for a
continuous period of not less than ten years. Not only must
he be domiciled here, but must have actual, physical and
continuous presence to be qualified.
The residence requirement is reduced to five (5) years in
any of the following cases:

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

1. If the applicant has honorably held office under

the government of the Philippines;
2. If he has established a new industry or
introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;
3. If he is married to a Filipino woman;
4. If he has been engaged as a teacher in a public
or private school, and,
5. If he was born in the Philippines.
c. He must be of good moral character, and believe in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution.
d. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less
than P5,000. Philippine currency, or must have some
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
This part should be deemed modified by the 1987
Constitution which prohibits aliens from owning lands in the
Philippines.
e. He trust be able to speak and write English or Spanish
and any of the principal Philippine languages. A deaf-mute
cannot speak, therefore, he cannot be naturalized.
f. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in
any of the public schools recognized by the Bureau of
Private Schools where Philippine history, government, and
civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school
curriculum.
REPUBLIC vs. DELA ROSA
232 SCRA 785
Private respondent, having opted to reacquire
Philippine citizenship through naturalization under
the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty, bound to
follow the procedure requirements which he
believes, even sincerely, are applicable to his case
and discard those which he believes are
inconvenient or merely of nuisance value. The law
does not distinguish between an applicant who
was formerly a Filipino citizen and one was never
such a citizen. It does not provide a special
procedure for the reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien.
DISQUALIFICATIONS:
a. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated
with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments:
b. Persons defending or teaching the propriety of violence,
personal assault, or assassination for the success and
predominance of their ideas;
c. Polygamist or believers of polygamy;
d. Persons convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
Moral turpitude is that which shows in a person the
presence of injustice, dishonesty, immodesty, or immorality.
e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious diseases;
f. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or
who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United
States and the Philippines are at war;
h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the
United States, whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
become naturalized citizens or subject thereof.

c. if the petition was made on an invalid declaration of

intention;
d. if it is shown that the minor children of the person
naturalized failed to graduate from public or private high
school
e. if it is shown that the naturalized citizen has followed
himself to be used as a dummy in violation of the
Constitution or legal provisions requiring Philippine
citizenship as a requisite for the exercise use of enjoyment
of a right, franchise or privilege.
2. BY REPATRIATION
Repatriation shall be affected by merely taking the
necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry.
WHO MAY BE REPATRIATED:
a. Deserters of the Armed Forces [CA 63]
b. Filipino women who lost Philippine citizenship on account
of marriage to an alien may be repatriated only after the
termination of the marital status. [RA 8171]
c. Those natural-born citizens who lost Philippine citizenship
on account of economic necessity. [RA 8171]
d. Those natural-born citizens who lost Philippine citizenship
on account of political necessity. [RA 8171] Labo Case
e. Those who rendered service in the US armed forces
without consent from the Philippine government. [RA 2630]
Bengzon Case
f. Any former natural-born citizen who lost Philippine
citizenship. [PD 725]
3. BY DIRECT ACT OF CONGRESS [CA 63]

LABO vs. COMELEC

176 SCRA I
Even if it be assumed that, as petitioner asserts,
his naturalization in Australia alone did not
automatically restore his Philippine citizenship.
His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not
concern us here. That is a matter between him
and his adopted country. What we must consider
is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected
Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly
embraced the citizenship for a foreign country.
The mean that he has been automatically
reinstead as a citizen of the Philippines.
LABO vs. COMELEC
211 SCRA 297
Petitioner Labos status has not changed in the
case at bar. To reiterate, he was disqualified as a
candidate for being an alien. His election does
automatically restore his Philippine citizenship, the
possession of which is an indispensable
requirement for holding public office.
Still, petition takes pains in rising a new argument
not litigated before the respondent COMELEC.
Petitioner claims that he has reacquired his
Filipino citizenship by citing his application for
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship filed before
the Office of the Solicitor General. To date,
however, and despite favorable recommendation
by the Solicitor General, the Special Committee on
Naturalization had yet to act upon said application
for repatriation. Indeed, such fact alone is even
admitted by petitioner. In the absence of any
official action or approval by the proper
authorities, a mere application for repatriation
does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic
reacquisition of the applicants Philippine
citizenship.

CANCELLATION OF NATURALIZATION
a. if is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained
fraudulently or illegally,
b. if the person naturalized shall, within the five years next
following the issuance of said naturalization certificate, return
to his native country of to some foreign country and
established his permanent residence therein;

4. BY TAKING OATH OF ALLEGIANCE if natural-born

under the Dual Citizenship Law [RA 9225]
Under this law, a natural-born who lost his Filipino
citizenship may reacquire it by simply taking an oath of
allegiance.

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

Natural-born citizens, who shall lost become citizens of a

foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship by
merely taking an oath of allegiance.
Minors whose parents reacquire Philippine citizenship
under this law shall be benefited.
CIVIL & POLITICAL RIGHTS See Section 5, RA 9225
IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAW:
a. Under this law, if a natural-born Filipino is
naturalized in a foreign country, he retains Filipino
citizenship if he did not take an oath of allegiance
in that foreign country.
Under the old law, once naturalized in a foreign
country, said person is considered as to have
absolutely lost his Philippine citizenship.
b. The law applies to natural-born Filipinos only.

Republic Act No. 9225

(1) Those intending to exercise their right of

suffrage must meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic
Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing
laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines
shall meet the qualification for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and existing
laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer
an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall
subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities prior to their assumption of
office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of
allegiance to the country where they took that
oath;

August 29, 2003

AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE

CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
PERMANENT.
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH
ACT. NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title this act shall be known as the
"Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the
policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired
Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic:
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or
affrim) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and
obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the
duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and
I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that
I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child,
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen
(18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine
citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed
citizenship of the Philippines.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under
this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject
to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing
laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:

(4) Those intending to practice their profession in

the Philippines shall apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed
to any public office in the Philippines cannot
be exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are
occupying any public office in the
country of which they are naturalized
citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as
commissioned or non-commissioned
officers in the armed forces of the
country which they are naturalized
citizens.
Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or provision
of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any other
section or provision not affected thereby shall remain valid
and effective.
Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders,
rules and regulations inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity Clause This Act shall take effect
after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general circulation.

RENUNCIATION OF CITIZENSHIP:
Section 4.
Citizens of the Philippines who marry
aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have
renounced it.
Marriage by a citizen to an alien will not make the
alien spouse Filipino. Likewise, marriage by a Filipino
woman to an alien shall not result in loss of citizenship,
unless by her act or omission, she is deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship.
RULE: Mere marriage will not result to loss of
Philippine citizenship.
LABO CASE If after marriage to an alien, the Filipino
spouse get naturalized in alien spouses country by
expressly renouncing Philippine citizenship & by subscribing
to an oath of allegiance in the foreign country, the Filipino
spouse cannot be natural-born again.

10

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

Sir Montejo: If the former Filipino lost his citizenship and later
reacquires it by naturalization under RA 9225 or by
Repatriation, he may be natural-born again.
Q: What is the citizenship of an alien woman who marries a
Filipino?

Note:
If an alien woman marries a Filipino, 10 years residency
requirement.
If alien man marries a Filipina, 5 years residency
requirement.
Q: What is the citizenship of illegitimate children?

MOY YA LIM YAO VS COM OF IMMIGRATION

[41 SCRA 292]
HELD: An alien woman marrying a Filipino, nativeborn or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipino
provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of
the Philippines under section 4 of CA 63.
Moreover, an alien woman married to an alien who
is subsequently naturalized here follows the
Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment
he takes his oath as a Filipino citizen, provided
she does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under said section 4.
The decision in effect ruled that it is not necessary
for an alien citizen to prove in a judicial proceeding
that she possesses all the qualifications set forth
in section 2 and none of the disqualifications in
section 4. [YAP VS REP, May 17, 1972]

A: Illegitimate child follows the citizenship of the mother. We

always know who the mother is, but sometimes we do not
know the father! Ngoirk-ngoirk!
Q: What is the citizenship of Vietnamese children or children
of Filipino males with Vietnamese women?
A: 1995 DOJ OPINION These children shall be considered
as Filipino.
Sabi ni Sir de la Bands, if the mother is Filipino, the child is
deemed Filipino also. Kung ang father Filipino tapos the
anak is deemed not Filipino or the child is an alien, pangit di
ba? So dapat, children of these Filipino fathers should also
be deemed Filipino. Gets?
Another reason is taken from the constitution itself , those
whose fathers or mothers are Filipino

PROCEDURE:
DUAL ALLEGIANCE & DUAL CITIZENSHIP:
1. Alien woman files a petition for cancellation of her ACR
with the Bureau of Immigration
2. Attach certification that she is married to a Filipino
3. Show that she possesses none of the disqualifications
PO SIOK PIN vs. VIVO
62 SCRA 363
The prevailing rule is that under Section 15 of
the Revised Naturalization Law an alien woman
marrying a Philippine citizen, native-born or
naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Philippine
citizen, provided that she is not disqualified
under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an
alien woman married to an alien, who
subsequently becomes a naturalized Filipino
citizen, acquires Philippine citizenship the
moment her husband takes his oath as a
Philippine citizen provided that she does not
have any of the disqualifications under said
Section 4.
Likewise, by virtue of Section 15, the
three children of Po Siok Pin, who were born in
China, who were in the Philippines at the time
their father was naturalized, who must be of age
now, automatically became Philippine citizens.
They should ask for the cancellation of their
alien certificates of registration.

Section 5.
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
In MERCADO VS MANZANO [307 SCRA 630], the court
clarified the dual citizenship disqualification in Section
40 of the Local Government Code, and reconciled the
same with Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution on
dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in which in which
a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act and as an
involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different
countries, be also a citizen of another state, the Court
explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must
refer to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere
dual citizenship do not fall under the disqualification.
Furthermore, for candidates with dual citizenship,
it is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the
filing of their certificate of candidacy to terminate their status
as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of
candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship,
effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen. This
is so because in the certificate of candidacy one declares
that he/she will support and defend the Constitution and will
maintain true faith and allegiance to the same. Such
declaration under oath operates as an effective renunciation
of foreign citizenship.

THEORIES OF DUAL & MULTIPLE NATIONALITIES

DJUMANTAN vs. DOMIGO
240 SCRA 746
There is no law guaranteeing aliens
married to Filipino citizens the right to be
admitted, much less to be given permanent
residency, in the Philippines.
The fact of marriage by an alien to a
citizen does not withdraw her from the operation
of the Immigration Laws governing the
admission and exclusion of aliens. Marriage of
an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not
ipso facto make her Filipino citizen, and does
not excuse her from her failure from the country
upon the expiration for her extended stay here
as an alien.
The word ipso facto without going into the tedious
proceedings of judicial determination (cf. Po Siok Pin case),
but such does not bind any governmental agency. She still
has to prove before some agency of the Government that
she is not disqualified to become a Filipino citizen by
naturalization (cf. Djumantan case).

(1)
(2)

Jus Soli if both in a country, a person is a citizen

of the same.
Jus Sanguinis one follows the citizenship of his
parents; this is citizenship by blood

DUAL & MULTIPLE NATIONALITIES

This can hardly arise because citizenship is a matter to be
exclusively determined by a countrys own law. In other
words, Philippine law are only allowed to determine who are
Filipino and who are not.
However, from the viewpoint of a third state, dual or multiple
citizenship may really exist.
Article 2 of the Hague Convention on Conflict of
nationality laws (April 12, 1930) says:Any question as to
whether a person possesses the nationality of a
particular state should be determined in accordance
with the law of that state.
Problem: A testator, considered a Filipino citizen under our
law, and a Chinese under Chinese law, died in France,
leaving properties in the Philippines. How should a Filipino
judge in a Philippine court of justice determine the
successional rights to the estate of the decedent?

11

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

(if dwelling outside the Philippines at the

time of parents naturalization) is a
Filipino only during his minority unless
he resides permanently in the
Philippines when still a minor, in which
case he will continue to be a Philippine
citizen even after becoming of age.

Answer: In as much as we regard him as a Filipino citizen,

there is no doubt that applying Art. 16, part.2 of our Civil
Code, Philippine law shall control the successional rights to
his estate. (RULE get the law of the forum if the forum is
one of the countries of which the deceased was a national.)
Problem: A testator, considered a Chinese under Chinese
law, and a Japanese under the Japanese law, died in
Manila, leaving properties in the Philippines. Prior to this
death, the deceased was domiciled in Japan. How should a
Filipino judge presiding over a Philippine tribunal adjudicate
successional rights to the estate of the deceased?

A minor child born AFTER naturalization

1)
2)

Answer: Japanese law shall be applied because the

deceased was BOTH a citizen and a domiciliary of
Japan. Japanese law, obviously is preferred over
Chinese law, for the DOMICLE was also in Japan.
(RULE if the deceased is not a citizen of the forum, we
must get the law of the nation which he was both a
national and domiciliary. This is the theory of effective
nationality.)

(if born in the Philippines) is a Filipino

(if born outside the Philippines) shall be
considered a Philippine citizen, unless within
one year after reaching the age of majority he
fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen
at the Philippine consulate of the country
where he resides and to take the necessary
oath of allegiance.
CHAPTER IX
THE DOMICILIARY THEORY

Problem: A testator, considered a Cuban under the Cuban

law, and an Alegrian under Alegrian law, was domiciled at
the moment of his death in Italy. He died in Alaska, leaving
properties in the Philippines. How should a Philippine court
dispose of the successional rights to his estate?
[[
Answer: To properly apply Art. 16, par.2, of the Civil Code,
it is believed that in case like this our rule should be:
1.) first, get the Cuban and the Alegrian law
succession, and apply them in so far as they
are consistent with or identical to each other;
2.) secondly, in so far as there is a conflict, we
must refer to the law of Italy, the law of the
domicile, to resolve the conflict.
WAYS IN WHICH MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP MIGHT ARISE:
1. Through origin a naturalized citizens failure to
comply with certain legal
requirements in the country of origin;
2.from a combined application of just soli and jus
sanguinis;
3.by the legislative act of states; and,
4.by the voluntary act of the individual concerned
Filipino Citizens at the Time of the Adoption of the
Constitution
1) persons born in the Philippines who resided
therein on April 11, 1899;
2) natives
and
naturalized
Spanish
of
Peninsular Spain who resided in the
Philippines on April 11, 1899;
3) children born of (1) and (2), subsequent to
Aril 11, 1899;
4) persons who became naturalized citizens of
the Philippines in accordance with the formal
procedure set forth in the Naturalization Law;
5) children of persons embraced in (4);
6) Filipino women who, after having lost
Philippine citizenship by marriage to
foreigners, had subsequently become widows
and regained Philippine citizenship on or
before May 14, 1935;
7) Children of (60 who were still under 21 years
old
at the time their mothers regained
Philippine citizenship;
8) Foreign women who married Filipino citizens
on or before May 14, 1935;
9) Persons of alien parents who were born in
the Philippines and subsequently been
elected to a public office in the Philippines.

DEFINITION:
This theory states that in general the status, condition,
rights, obligations and capacity of a person should be
governed by the law of his domicile.
Defects:
1. Various countries have varying concepts as to
the real meaning of domicile,
2. Domicile is comparatively easier to change than
nationality;
3. For ulterior motives, persons may pretend to be
domiciliaries of one state when in truth their
domicile may be elsewhere.
Distinguished from Citizenship or Nationality:
DOMICILE speaks of ones permanent place of abode, in
general; upon the other hand, CITIZENSHIP &
NATIONALITY indicate ties of allegiance and loyalty. A
person maybe a citizen or national of one state, without
being a domiciliary thereof; conversely, one may possess
his domicile in one state without necessarily being a citizen
or national thereof.
DEFINITION / KINDS OF DOMICILE:
Domicile is that place where a person has certain settled,
fixed, legal relations because:
a. it is assigned to him by the law AT THE MOMENT OF
BIRTH (Domicile of origin)
b. it is assigned to him also by law AFER BIRTH on account
of a legal disability caused for instance by minority, insanity,
or marriage in the case of a woman (Constructive Domicile
or Domicile by operation of law)
c. because he has his home there that to which, whenever
absent, he intends to return (Domicile of Choice)
ARTICLE 50, NCC. For the exercise of civil rights and the
fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons
is the place of their habitual residence.
DOMICILE
DISTINGUISHED
RESIDENCE :
DOMICILE

FROM

ORDINARY

ORDINARY RESIDENCE

Children of Naturalized Filipino Fathers

(1) More or less permanent

(1) More or less temporary

A minor child born BEFORE naturalization

(2) A person can generally

have only one domicile.

(2) A person can have

several places of residence.

(3) Domicile is residence

coupled with the intention
to remain for an unlimited
time.

(3)
Residence
domicile.

1)
2)

if born in the Philippines-is a Filipino

if born outside the Philippines
(if dwelling in the Philippines at the time
of the parents naturalization) is a
Filipino;

is

not

12

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

(4)
Denotes
a
fixed
permanent residence to
which when absent, one
has
the
intention
of
returning.

(4) Used to indicate a place

of
abode,
whether
permanent or temporary.

In view of their legal disability, infants, idiots, lunatics

and the insane cannot acquire any domicile of choice.

Because of lack of voluntariness, the following cannot

also acquire a new domicile of choice:

1. A convict or a prisoner
2. Involuntary exiles
3. Soldiers
4. Public officials and employees, diplomats and
consular officers
WHERE WE FOLLOW THE DOMICILIARY THEORY :

Change and Retention of Domicile

(a) For a change of domicile, intention to reside elsewhere
without actual residence in the place chosen will not be
sufficient and vise-versa. In other words, to effect a change
of domicile both ACTUAL STAY and the INTENT must
concur.
(b) For a retention, there need not be a concurrence of the
two for unless a new domicile is acquired, the old one is
retained. Hence, one may retain old domicile so long as he
resides there OR even if not, so long as he intends to
return.
Note:
Intention without residence or residence without
intention will not suffice for the acquisition of a domicile but
will be sufficient for the retention of an existing domicile.
Q: To acquire a new domicile of choice, what things must
concur?
A: There must concur:

1. Formalities in Making Wills

1.

2. In the Revocation of wills entirely founded on domiciliary

theory; based on the law of the place where the will is
revoked

2.
3.

3. In Election Laws regarding the qualifications of the

persons running for elective positions

ROMUALDEZ MARCOS vs. COMELEC

248 SCRA 300

4. When the Nationality Theory is ineffective when the

National Law of an individual is inadequate, the Domiciliary
Theory will come to the rescue , like in solving conflicts
problems regarding stateless individuals, and by those
possessed of a dual or multiple citizenship.

We have stated many lines in the past that an

individual does not lose his domicile even if he has
lived and maintained residences in different
places. Residence, it bears repeating, implies a
factual relationship to a given place for various
purposes. The absence from legal residence or
domicile to pursue a profession to study or to do
other things of a temporary or semi-permanent
nature does not constitute loss of residence.
Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that she
could not have been a resident of Tacloban City
since childhood up to the time she filed certificate
of candidacy because she became a resident of
many places flies in the face of settled
jurisprudence.

FUNDAMENTAL
OF CHOICE :

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DOMICILE

1. No natural person must ever be without a domicile.

REASON : kasi kung walang domicile, the law will
assign one and kung wala talaga, the domicile of
origin will be retained
2. No person can have 2 or more domiciles at the same
time.
3. Domicile may be changed.
4. Once acquired, it remains the domicile, unless a new one
is obtained.
HOW TO ACQUIRE A NEW DOMICILE OF CHOICE :
1. Must be made by a CAPACITATED PERSON;
2. With FREEDOM OF CHOICE;

OLD CASE : An American soldier who has resided

in the Philippines for 10 years, wanted to adopt a
Filipino child. The courts did not allow him to adopt
because he has no freedom of choice. His being
here in the Philippines was forced upon him. He
was merely compelled to follow the dictates of
military exigencies.

ROMUALDEZ CASE : Brother of Imelda went to

the US for sometime. Then, he came back to the
Philippines. He wanted to register as a voter.
COMELEC did not allow him because he lacked
the residence requirement. The Supreme Court
ruled that he be allowed to register. There was no
freedom of choice on his part when he ran out of
the Philippines because his life was in danger. He
was afraid of being killed. So, even if he stayed in
the US for sometime, Philippines pa rin ang
domicile niya.

3. With ACTUAL PHYSICAL PRESENCE in the place

chosen;
4. An INTENTION to acquire a new one.

residence or bodily presence in the new

locality.
an intention to remain there; and
an intention to abandon the old domicile.
(Gallego v. Vera)

A citizen may leave the place of his birth to look

for greener pastures, as the saying goes, to
improve his lot and that, of course includes study
in other places practice of his vocation, or
engaging in business. When an election is to be
held, the citizen who left his birthplace to improve
his lot may desire to return to his native town to
cast his ballot; but for professional or business
reasons, he may not absent himself from his
profession or business activities so there registers
himself as voter as he has the qualifications to be
one and is not willing to give up lose opportunity to
choose the officials who are to run the government
especially in national elections. Despite such
registration, the animus revertendi to his home, to
his domicile, or residence of origin has not
forsaken him. This may be the explanation why
the registration of a voter in a place other his
residence of origin has not been deemed sufficient
to constitute abandonment or loss of such
residence. It finds justification in the natural desire
and longing of every person to return to his place
of birth. This strong feeling of attachment to the
place of ones birth must be overcome by positive
proof of abandonment for another.
Although petitioner held various residences for
different purposes during the past four decades,
none of these purposes unequivocally point to an
intention to abandon her domicile of origin in
Tacloban, Leyte. Moreover, while petitioner was
born in Manila, as a minor she naturally followed
the domicile of her parents. She grew up in
Tacloban, reached her adulthood there and
eventually established residence in different parts
of the country for various reasons; even during her
husbands presidency, at the height of the Marcos
Regimes powers, petitioner kept close ties to her
domicile of origin by establishing residences in

13

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other

important personal milestones in her home
province, instituting will-publicized projects for the
benefit of her province and hometown, and
establishing a political power base where her
siblings and close relatives held positions of power
either through the ballot or by appointment, always
with either her influence or consent. These wellpublicized ties to her domicile of origin are part of
the history and lore of the quarter century of
Marcos power in our country.

Metro Manila coupled with the short length of time

he claims to be a resident of the condominium unit
in Makati indicate that the sole purpose of
petitioner in transferring his physical residence is
not to acquire a new residence or domicile, but
only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of
the Second District of Makati City. The absence
of clear and positive proof showing a successful
abandonment of domicile under the conditions
stated above, the lack of identification sentimental,
actual or otherwise with the area, and the
suspicious circumstances under which the lease
agreement we affected all belie petitioners claim
of residence for the period required by the
Constitution.

AQUINO vs. COMELEC

248 SCRA 400
We agree with COMELECs contention that in
order that petitioner could quality as a candidate
for Representative of the Second District of Makati
the latter must prove that be has established not
just residence but domicile of choice.

The place where a party actually or constructively

has his permanent home, whether he no matter,
where he may be found at any given eventually
intends to return and remain, i.e his domicile, is
that to which the Constitution refers when it
speaks of residence for the purposes of election
law. The manifest purpose of this deviation from
the usual-conceptions of residency in law is to
exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with
the conditions and needs of the community from
taking advantage of favorable circumstances
existing that community foe electoral gain. While
there is nothing wrong with the practice of
establishing residence in a given area for meeting,
election law requirements, this nonetheless
defeats the essence of representation, which is
the place through the assent of voters those most
recognizant and sensitive to the needs of a
particular district. If a candidate falls short of the
period of residency mandated by law for him to
qualify. That purpose could obviously be best met
by individuals who have either had actual
residence in the area for a given period or who
have been domiciled in the same area either by
origin or by choice.
It would, therefore, be
imperative for this Court to inquire into the
threshold question as to whether or not petitioner
actually was a resident for a period of one year in
the area now encompassed by the Second
Legislative District at the time of his election or
whether or not he was domiciled in the same.
As found by the COMELEC en bane petitioner in
his Certificate of Candidacy for the May 11, 1992
elections, indicated not only that he was a resident
of San Jose, Concepcion. Tarlac in 1992 but that
he was a resident of the same for 52 years
immediately preceding that election. At the time,
his certificate indicated that he was also a
registered voter of the same district. His birth
certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac as the
birthplaces of both his parents Benigno and
Aurora. Thus, from data furnished by petitioner
himself to the COMELEC at various times during
his political career, what stands consistently clear
and unassailable is that his domicile of origin of
record up to the time of filing of his most recent
certificate of candidacy for the 1995 elections was
Concepcion, Tarlac.
Petitioners alleged connection with the Second
District of Makati is an alleged lease agreement of
a condominium unit in the area. The intention not
to establish e permanent home in Makati City is
evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead
of buying one. While a lease contract may be
indicative of petitioners intention to reside in
Makati City it does not engender the kind of
permanency required to prove abandonment of
ones original domicile. While property ownership
is not and should never be an indicia of the right to
vote or to be voted upon, the fact that petitioner
himself claims that he has other residences in

Moreover, his assertion that he has transferred his

domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion
which is hardly supported by the facts in the case
at bench. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To
successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner
must prove an actual removal or an actual change
of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning
the former place of residence and establishing a
new one and definite acts which correspond with
the purpose. In the absence of clear and positive
proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed to
continue.
RULES FOR DOMICILE OF ORIGIN :
a.) LEGITIMATE CHILD domicile of choice of his father at
the moment of the birth of the child domicile of choice of
either the father or the mother

If the child is posthumous (one born after the

death of the father), its domicile of origin is the
domicile of choice of the mother.

b.) ILLEGITIMATE CHILD domicile of choice of the

mother at the time of the birth of the child
c.) LEGITIMATED CHILD domicile of the father at the time
of the birth (not the legitimation) of the child because the
effects of legitimation shall retroact to the time of the childs
birth
d.) ADOPTED CHILD - domicile of the real parent or the
parent by consanguinity & NOT the domicile of the adopter
e.) A FOUNDLING - (an abandoned infant whose parents
are unknown) the country where it was found
QUESTION : Suppose the parents become known, what will
be the domicile of origin of the foundling?
ANSWER : It is not a foundling, and therefore cannot have a
domicile of origin as a foundling. If legitimate, we follow the
rules hereinabove given; if illegitimate, follow the indicated
rules.
RULES FOR CONSTRUCTIVE DOMICILE :
a) RULES FOR INFANTS:
1. IF LEGITIMATE the domicile of choice of
either the father or mother

If both parents of the

legitimate child are dead, the
constructive domicile of the
child will be that of the parent
who died later.

2. IF ILLEGITIMATE the domicile of choice of

the mother
3. IF ADOPTED the domicile of choice of the
adopter
4.

IF A WARD the domicile of choice of the

guardian [over the person of the ward]

14

Hasnia P. Casan-Basman
Conflict of Laws

b) RULES FOR MARRIED WOMEN

1.) If the marriage is VALID - Domicile of choice
of both husband and wife ( in case of
disagreement the court shall decide).
2.) If the marriage is VOIDABLE

Prior to annulment, domicile

of the wife is the domicile of
choice of both the wife and
the husband.
After, the woman ceases to
be wife, hence, being no
longer under any legal
disability, she no longer has
any constructive domicile.

3.) If the marriage is VOID no constructive

domicile.

Should she continue being domiciled in

the same place as where her husband
is a domiciliary, it would be her domicile
of choice. It is as if there was no
marriage, and the wife is not really
one. Hence, she is not laboring under
any legal disability; consequently, she
has no constructive domicile.

In the following instances among others, the wife may

be allowed to have a separate domicile
1. If the husband lives abroad, or there are other
valid and compelling reasons for the exemption.
2. If they are legally separated.
3. If the husband forcibly ejects the wife from the
conjugal home so that may have illicit relations
with another.
4. If there is a separation de facto of the spouses.
c) RULES FOR IDIOTS, LUNATICS & INSANE:
(1) If BELOW the age of majority - considered as
infants; thus, the rules for infants are applicable
to them.
(2) If ABOVE the age of majority:
i. with guardians over their persons domicile choice of their guardians
ii. without guardians - the place where
they had their domicile of choice shortly
before they became insane.

it should be remembered, however, that

voluntary domicile of choice may be
acquired by insane individuals if at the
time of the choice they were in their
lucid intervals.

Q; If the husband is insane or otherwise incapacitated, what

is the constructive domicile of his wife?
A: The wife is free from all legal disability insofar as domicile
is concerned, therefore, she is free to select her own
domicile of choice.

CHAPTER X
THE SITUS OR ECLECTIC THEORY

This theory states that the capacity, legal condition

or status of an individual should be governed not necessarily
by the law of his nationality nor by the law of his domicile but
by the law of the place (situs) where an important element of
the problem occurs or is situated.
However, the theory distinguishes between two kinds of
participation of the individual concerned:

1.

2.

If the participation is active (as when he does the

act voluntarily) - the governing law as the law of
the ACTUAL SITUS (the place of the transaction
or event)
If the participation is passive (as when the effects
of the act are set forth in the law) - the governing
law is the LEGAL SITUS (the legal situs of an
individual is supposed to be his DOMICILE).

Problem : Two Filipinos Domiciled in Japan, get married in

California. What law governs:
(a.) the validity of marriage?
(b.) The marital obligations of husband and
wife?
Answer: (a) The act of getting married is a voluntary one;
hence the participation of the man and the woman is
ACTIVE. Since the marriage took place in California,
California is the ACTUAL SITUS, hence California law
governs the validity of the marriage.
(b). Generally the marital obligations of husband and wife
are not fixed by them, they are regulated or imposed by the
law. Hence, their participation in this matter may be said to
be merely PASSIVE. The governing law is, therefore, the
law of the LEGAL SITUS, which is the DOMICILE of the
parties. Since they are domiciled in Japan, their marital
rights and obligations are governed by Japanese law.
Note: The theory that we follow in the Philippines on the
same matter is different. Hence, this Situs Theory is
properly applied only to property.
Problem: What law governs the capacity of a German to
alienate his lands and cars located in the Philippines?
Answer: Applying the SITUS THEORY to the problem, said
capacity is governed by the law of the place where the
property is located.
Since the properties are in the
Philippines, the law of the Philippines shall govern.

15