Angat vs.

Republic, 314 SCRA 438Petition:

Petitioner:Gerardo Angat
Respondent:Republic of the Philippines
Ponente:J. Vitug
Date:14 September 1999
Facts:Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural born citizen of the Philippines until he lost his
citizenship by naturalization in the United States of America.
-11 March 1996 filed before RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272, a petition to regain his
Status as a citizen of the Philippines [under CA 63, RA 965 and RA 2630]
-30 April 1996 the trial court issued a notice setting the case for initial hearing on
-27 January1997 copy received by the Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG"),
-13 June 1996 Angat sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 8171
motion initially denied by the trial judge, but Angat just filed another motion afterwards, and
eventually the court consented.
-3 October 1996 on court order, Angat took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines [pursuant to RA 8171]
-4 October 1996
, the trial judge issued another order stating, among others, the petitioner is
hereby repatriated and declared as citizen of the Republic of the Philippines
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171.
-19 March 1997
, OSG asserted that the petition itself should have been dismissed by the court a
quo for lack of jurisdiction because the proper forum for it was the Special
Committee on Naturalization [pursuant to AO 285, dated
22 Aug 1996
-22 September 1997 the trial court found merit in the OSGs assertion: xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the motion to dismiss filed by the
Office of the Solicitor General is hereby granted. The orders of this Court dated
September 20,1996 and October 04, 1996 are hereby set aside and the herein
petition is ordered DISMISSED on the ground of lack of jurisdiction without prejudice
to its re-filing before the Special Committee on Naturalization.
-13 October 1997 Angat filed motion for reconsideration, questioned the September
1997decision by the trial court: he asserted that his petition was filed on 14 March 1996,
months before the Special Committee on Naturalization was supposedly constituted
[pursuant to AO 285] the trial judge denied the motion for recon. on 29 Dec 1997.
-PD 703: designated the Special Committee on Naturalization as the proper body to process
there partitions of Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens, and
natural born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship.
-Letter of Instruction No. 270 (amended by LOI 491): among others, defined which public
officers constituted the Special Committee.
Issues:
1. At the time the petition [to regain his Status as a citizen of the Philippines] was filed, did the
RTC have jurisdiction over repatriation cases for natural-born Filipinos?

Ruling:
1. No. The law in effect at the time the petition was PD 703, and according to PD 703
the Special Committee on Naturalization was the proper venue for such a
petition, not the RTC.
Ratio 1.
The important question is, at the time the petition was filed, on 11 March 1996, which of
therepatriation laws in effect was/were applicable to the case of the petitioner, Mr. Angat?
Pursuant to PD 703, the Special Committee on Naturalization [chaired by the Solicitor General
with the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the National
Intelligence Coordinating Agency as the other members] was the proper body to receive and
act on repatriation petitions of natural-born Filipinos, from 5 June 1975 till 27 March 1987, when
it was deactivated, "to cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings . . . under
Letter of Instruction 270.", by virtue of a Memorandum issued by President Corazon Aquino.
This Special Committee was reactivated on 8 June 1995 and was still in effect at the time the
petition was filed.
SC: The Office of the Solicitor General was right in maintaining that Angat's petition should
have been filed with the Committee, aforesaid, and not with the RTC which had no jurisdiction
there over. The court's order of 4 October 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire
finality nor could be a source of right on the part of petitioner.
On the correctness of the initial basis asserted by the petitioner for his repatriation:
It should also be noteworthy that the petition in Case No. N-96-03-MK was one for
repatriation, and it was thus incorrect for petitioner to initially invoke Republic Act No. 965
and R.A. No. 2630 since these laws could only apply to persons who had lost their
citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of an
allied foreign country or the armed forces of the United States of America, a factual matter not
alleged in the petition, Parenthetically, under these statutes, the person desiring to re-acquire
Philippine citizenship would not even be required to file a petition in court, and all that he had to
do was to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact
with the civil registry in the place of his residence or where he had last resided in the
Philippines.