and shall be decided, after the

notice and hearing, not later than

fifteen days before the election.
and
"(2) After election, pursuant to
Section 253 thereof, viz:
'Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto.
Any voter contesting the election
of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial, or
city officer on the ground of
inelligibility or of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines shall file
a
sworn
petition
for quo
warranto with
the
Commission within ten days after
the proclamation of the results of
the election."
The records show that Osmena filed
his certificate of candidacy on
November 19, 1987 and that Aznar
filed his petition for disqualification
on January 22, 1988. Since the
petition for disqualification was filed
beyond the twenty five-day period
required
in
Section
78
of
the Omnibus Election Code, it is
clear that said petition was filed out
of time.
The petition for the disqualification
of Osmena cannot also be treated
as a petition for quo warranto under
Section 253 of the same Code as it
is
unquestionably
premature,
considering that Osmena was
proclaimed Provincial Governor of
Cebu only on March 3, 1988.
2. YES.
In the proceedings before the
COMELEC, Aznar failed to present
direct proof that Osmena had lost
his Filipino citizenship by any of the
modes provided for under C.A. No.
63. Among others, these are: (1) by
naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) by express renunciation of
citizenship; and (3) by subscribing
to an oath of allegiance to support
the Constitution or laws of a foreign
country.
From
the
evidence,
Osmea did not lose his Philippine
citizenship by any of the three
mentioned hereinabove or by any

that he is a holder of a valid and

subsisting
Philippine
Passport
issued on March 25, 1987; that he
has been continuously residing in
the Philippines since birth and has
not gone out of the country for more
than six months; and that he has
been a registered voter in the
Philippines since 1965.
On March 3, 1988, COMELEC
directed the Board of Canvassers to
proclaim the winning candidates.
Having obtained the highest number
of votes, Osmena was proclaimed
the Provincial Governor of Cebu. On
June
11,
1988,
COMELEC
dismissed
the
petition
for
disqualification for not having been
timely filed and for lack of sufficient
proof that Osmena is not a Filipino
citizen.
ISSUES:
1. WON petition for disqualification
was timely filed.
2. WON Osmena is a Filipino
citizen.
RULING:
1. NO.
There are two instances where a
petition
questioning
the
qualifications of a registered
candidate to run for the office for
which his certificate of candidacy
was filed can be raised under
the Omnibus Election Code (B.P.
Blg. 881), to wit:
"(1) Before election, pursuant to
Section 78 thereof which provides
that:
'Section 78. Petition to deny due
course or to cancel a certificate of
candidacy. A verified petition
seeking to deny due course or to
cancel a certificate of candidacy
may be filed by any person
exclusively on the ground that any
material representation contained
therein as required under Section
74 hereof is false. The petition may
be filed at any time not later than
twenty five days from the time of the
filing of the certificate of candidacy

AZNAR vs COMELEC
JOSE B. AZNAR (as Provincial
Chairman of PDP Laban in
Cebu), petitioner
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
and EMILIO MARIO RENNER
OSMEA,respondents
G.R. No. 83820. May 25, 1990. EN
BANC
FACTS:
On November 19, 1987, private
respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmea
filed his certificate of candidacy with
the COMELEC for the position of
Provincial Governor of Cebu
Province in the January 18, 1988
local elections. On January 22,
1988,
the
Cebu
PDP-Laban
Provincial
Council
(Cebu-PDP
Laban, for short), as represented by
petitioner Jose B. Aznar in his
capacity as its incumbent Provincial
Chairman, filed with the COMELEC
a petition for the disqualification of
Osmea on the ground that he is
allegedly not a Filipino citizen, being
a citizen of the United States of
America.
On January 28, 1988, the
COMELEC en banc resolved to
order the Board to continue
canvassing but to suspend the
proclamation. At the hearing before
the COMELEC, Aznar presented
the following exhibits tending to
show that Osmena is an American
citizen:
Application
for
Alien
Registration of the Bureau of
Immigration dated November 21,
1979;
Alien
Certificate
of
Registration dated November 21,
1979; Permit to Re-enter the
Philippines dated November 21,
1979; Immigration Certificate of
Clearance dated January 3, 1980.
Osmea on the other hand,
maintained that he is a Filipino
citizen, alleging: that he is the
legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D.
Osmea, a Filipino and son of the
late President Sergio Osmea, Sr.;

secondary education in the country;

they do not speak nor understand
the Chinese language, have not set
foot in Taiwan, and do not know any
relative of their father; they have not
even traveled abroad; and they
have already raised their respective
families in the Philippines.
During their age of minority, they
secured from the Bureau of
Immigration their Alien Certificates
of Registration (ACRs).
Having taken their oath of
allegiance as Philippine citizens,
petitioners, however, failed to have
the necessary documents
registered in the civil registry as
required under Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act
Providing the Manner in which the
Option to Elect Philippine
Citizenship shall be Declared by a
Person whose Mother is a Filipino
Citizen) .It was only on27 July
2005or more than thirty (30) years
after they elected Philippine
citizenship that Balgamelo and
Felix, Jr. did so. On the other hand,
there is no showing that Valeriano
complied with the registration
requirement.
Individual certifications all dated3
January 2005issued by the Office of
the City Election Officer,
Commission on Elections,
SurigaoCity, show that all of them
are registered voters of Barangay
Washington, Precinct No. 0015A
since June 1997, and that records
on previous registrations are no
longer available because of the
mandatory general registration
every ten (10) years.Moreover,
aside from exercising their right of
suffrage, Balgamelo is one of the
incumbent Barangay Kagawads in
Barangay Washington, Surigao City.
On16 February 2004, the Bureau of
Immigration received the ComplaintAffidavit of a certain Mat G. Catral

there is no express renunciation

here of Philippine citizenship; truth
to tell, there is even no implied
renunciation of said citizenship.
When We consider that the
renunciation needed to lose
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".
1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: Balgamelo
Petioner vs Commissioner
of beaureu of immigration
d. Citation: G.R. No. 183133

2. Body :
Facts of the case:

FACTS:
Balgamelo Cabiling Ma
(Balgamelo), Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr.
(Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma
(Valeriano), Lechi Ann Ma (Lechi
Ann), Arceli Ma (Arceli), Nicolas Ma
(Nicolas), and Isidro Ma (Isidro) are
the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma,
a Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona
Cabiling, a Filipina.
Records reveal that petitioners
Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and Valeriano
were all born under aegis of the
1935 Philippine Constitution in the
years 1948, 1951, and 1957,
respectively.
They were all raised in the
Philippines and have resided in this
country for almost sixty (60) years;
they spent their whole lives, studied
and received their primary and

other mode of losing Philippine

citizenship.
In concluding that Osmena had
been naturalized as a citizen of the
USA, Aznar merely relied on the
fact that Osmena was issued alien
certificate of registration and was
given clearance and permit to reenter the Philippines by the
Commission on Immigration and
Deportation. Aznar assumed that
because of the foregoing, Osmena
is an American and "being an
American", Osmena "must have
taken and sworn to the Oath of
Allegiance required by the U.S.
Naturalization Laws.
Philippine courts are only allowed to
determine who are Filipino citizens
and who are not. Whether or not a
person is considered an American
under the laws of the United States
does not concern Us here.
By virtue of his being the son of a
Filipino father, the presumption that
Osmena is a Filipino remains. It was
incumbent upon Aznar to prove that
Osmena had lost his Philippine
citizenship however, he failed to
positively establish this fact.
Osmena vehemently denies having
taken the oath of allegiance of the
US. He is a holder of a valid and
subsisting Philippine passport and
has continuously participated in the
electoral process in this country
since 1963 up to the present, both
as a voter and as a candidate.
Thus, Osmena remains a Filipino
and the loss of his Philippine
citizenship cannot be presumed.

Additional Questions;
Holder of ACR and Valid Phil
Passport:
In the case of Osmea, 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,

be expressed in a statement to be
signed and sworn to by the party
concerned before any officer
authorized to administer oaths, and
shall be filed with the nearest civil
registry.The said party shall
accompany the aforesaid statement
with the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of
thePhilippines.
The statutory formalities of electing
Philippine citizenship are: (1) a
statement of election under oath; (2)
an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and Government of
thePhilippines; and (3) registration
of the statement of election and of
the oath with the nearest civil
registry.
POLITICAL LAW: upon reaching
the age of majority
In both cases, we ruled against the
petitioners because they belatedly
complied with all the requirements.
The acts of election and their
registration with the nearest civil
registry were all done beyond the
reasonable period of three years
upon reaching the age of majority.
The instant case presents a
different factual setting.Petitioners
complied with the first and second
requirements upon reaching the age
of majority.It was only the
registration of the documents of
election with the civil registry that
was belatedly done.
We rule that under the facts peculiar
to the petitioners, the right to elect
Philippine citizenship has not been
lost and they should be allowed to
complete the statutory requirements
for such election.
Such conclusion, contrary to the
finding of the Court of Appeals, is in
line with our decisions in In Re:
Florencio Mallare, Co v. Electoral
Tribunal of the House of

On29 August 2007, the Court of

Appeals dismissed the petition after
finding that the petitioners failed to
comply with the exacting standards
of the law providing for the
procedure and conditions for their
continued stay in the Philippines
either as aliens or as its nationals.
On 29 May 2008, it issued a
Resolution denying the petitioners
Motion for Reconsideration dated 20
September 2007.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners herein
are Filipino Citizens.
HELD:
POLITICAL LAW: citizens of the
philippines
The 1935 Constitution declares as
citizens of the Philippines those
whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines and elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.The mandate states:
Section 1. The following are citizens
of thePhilippines:
(1)xxx;
xxxx
(4) Those whose mothers are
citizens of thePhilippinesand, upon
reaching the age of majority, elect
Philippine citizenship.
POLITICAL LAW: statutory
formalities of electing Philippine
citizenship
In 1941, Commonwealth Act No.
625 was enacted.It laid down the
manner of electing Philippine
citizenship, to wit:
Section 1.The option to elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance
with subsection (4), Section 1,
Article IV, of the Constitution shall

(Mr. Catral), alleging that Felix (Yao

Kong) Ma and his seven (7) children
are undesirable and overstaying
aliens.Mr. Catral, however, did not
participate in the proceedings, and
the Ma family could not but believe
that the complaint against them was
politically motivated because they
strongly supported a candidate in
Surigao City in the 2004 National
and Local Elections.
On9 November 2004, the Legal
Department of the Bureau of
Immigration charged them for
violation of Sections 37(a)(7) and
45(e) of Commonwealth Act No.
613, otherwise known as the
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940,
as amended.
After Felix Ma and his seven (7)
children were afforded the
opportunity to refute the allegations,
the Board of Commissioners
(Board) of the Bureau of
Immigration (BI), composed of the
public respondents, rendered a
Judgment dated 2 February 2005
finding that Felix Ma and his
children violated Commonwealth
Act No. 613, Sections 37(a)(7) and
45(e) in relation to BI Memorandum
Order Nos. ADD-01-031 and ADD01-035 dated 6 and22 August 2001,
respectively.
In its Resolution of 8 April 2005,
public respondents partially
reconsidered their Judgment of 2
February 2005.They were
convinced that Arceli is an
immigrant under Commonwealth
Act No. 613, Section 13(g).
However, they denied the Motion for
Reconsideration with respect to
Felix Ma and the rest of his children.
On3 May 2005, only Balgamelo,
Felix, Jr., and Valeriano filed the
Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
before the Court of Appeals.

POLITICAL LAW: purpose of

registration
In Pascua v. Court of Appeals, we
elucidated the principles of civil law
on registration:
To register is to record or
annotate.American and Spanish
authorities are unanimous on the
meaning of the term to register as to
enter in a register; to record formally
and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a
list. In general, registration refers to
any entry made in the books of the
registry, including both registration
in its ordinary and strict sense, and
cancellation, annotation, and even
the marginal notes.In strict
acceptation, it pertains to the entry
made in the registry which records
solemnly and permanently the right
of ownership and other real rights.
Simply stated, registration is made
for the purpose of notification.
Actual knowledge may even have
the effect of registration as to the
person who has knowledge
thereof.Thus, [i]ts purpose is to give
notice thereof to all persons (and it)
operates as a notice of the deed,
contract, or instrument to others. As
pertinent is the holding that
registration neither adds to its
validity nor converts an invalid
instrument into a valid one between
the parties.It lays emphasis on the
validity of an unregistered
document.
Notably, the petitioners timely took
their oath of allegiance to
thePhilippines.This was a serious
undertaking.It was commitment and
fidelity to the state coupled with a
pledge to renounce absolutely and
forever all allegiance to any other
state.This was unqualified
acceptance of their identity as a
Filipino and the complete disavowal
of any other nationality.

In all, the Court of Appeals found

the petitioners argument of good
faith and informal election
unacceptable and held:
Their reliance in the ruling
contained in Re:Application for
Admission to the Philippine Bar,
Vicente D. Ching, [which was
decided on1 October 1999], is
obviously flawed.It bears emphasis
that the Supreme Court, in said
case, did not adopt the doctrine laid
down in In Re: Florencio Mallare.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court
was emphatic in pronouncing that
the special circumstances invoked
by Ching, i.e., his continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines
and his being a certified public
accountant, a registered voter and a
former elected public official, cannot
vest in him Philippine citizenship as
the law specifically lays down the
requirements for acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by election.
We are not prepared to state that
the mere exercise of suffrage, being
elected public official, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in
thePhilippines, and other similar
acts showing exercise of Philippine
citizenship can take the place of
election of citizenship.What we now
say is that where, as in petitioners
case, the election of citizenship has
in fact been done and documented
within the constitutional and
statutory timeframe, the registration
of the documents of election beyond
the frame should be allowed if in the
meanwhile positive acts of
citizenship have publicly,
consistently, and continuously been
done.The actual exercise of
Philippine citizenship, for over half a
century by the herein petitioners, is
actual notice to the Philippine public
which is equivalent to formal
registration of the election of
Philippine citizenship.

Representatives, and
Re:Application for Admission to the
Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching.
In Mallare, Estebans exercise of the
right of suffrage when he came of
age was deemed to be a positive
act of election of Philippine
citizenship. The Court of Appeals,
however, said that the case cannot
support herein petitioners cause,
pointing out that, unlike petitioner,
Esteban is a natural child of a
Filipina, hence, no other act would
be necessary to confer on him the
rights and privileges of a Filipino
citizen, and that Esteban was born
in 1929 prior to the adoption of the
1935 Constitution and the
enactment of Commonwealth Act
No. 625.
In the Co case, Jose Ong, Jr. did
more than exercise his right of
suffrage, as he established his life
here in thePhilippines.Again, such
circumstance, while similar to that of
herein petitioners, was not
appreciated because it was ruled
that any election of Philippine
citizenship on the part of Ong would
have resulted in absurdity, because
the law itself had already elected
Philippine citizenship for him as,
apparently, while he was still a
minor, a certificate of naturalization
was issued to his father.
In Ching, it may be recalled that we
denied his application for admission
to the Philippine Bar because, in his
case, all the requirements, to wit: (1)
a statement of election under oath;
(2) an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and Government of the
Philippines; and (3) registration of
the statement of election and of the
oath with the nearest civil registry
were complied with only fourteen
(14) years after he reached the age
of majority.Ching offered no reason
for the late election of Philippine
citizenship.

mother.The lacking requirements

may still be complied with subject to
the imposition of appropriate
administrative penalties, if any.The
documents they submitted
supporting their allegations that they
have already registered with the civil
registry, although belatedly, should
be examined for validation purposes
by the appropriate agency, in this
case, the Bureau of
Immigration.Other requirements
embodied in the administrative
orders and other issuances of the
Bureau of Immigration and the
Department of Justice shall be
complied with within a reasonable
time.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
29 August 2007, and the
Resolution dated 29 May 2008 of
the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R.
SP No. 89532 affirming the
Judgment dated 2 February 2005,
and the Resolution dated 8 April
2005of the Bureau of Immigration
in BSI-D.C. No. AFF-04-574 OCSTF-04-09/23-1416 are hereby
SET ASIDE with respect to
petitioners Balgamelo Cabiling
Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr., and
Valeriano Cabiling Ma.Petitioners
are given ninety (90) days from
notice within which to
COMPLYwith the requirements of
the Bureau of Immigration
embodied in its Judgment of2
February 2005.The Bureau of
Immigration shall ENSURE that
all requirements, including the
payment of their financial
obligations to the state, if any,
have been complied with subject
to the imposition of appropriate
administrative fines;REVIEW the
documents submitted by the
petitioners; andACTthereon in
accordance with the decision of
this Court.

1.Reference :

Section 1.The following are citizens

of the Philippines:
(1)xxx.
(2)Those whose fathers and
mothers are citizens of the
Philippines.
Better than the relaxation of the
requirement, the 1987 Constitution
now classifies them as natural-born
citizens upon election of Philippine
citizenship.Thus, Sec. 2, Article IV
thereof provides:
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.
We are guided by this evolvement
from election of Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority under the 1935 Philippine
Constitution to dispensing with the
election requirement under the 1973
Philippine Constitution to express
classification of these children as
natural-born citizens under the 1987
Constitution towards the conclusion
that the omission of the 1941
statutory requirement of registration
of the documents of election should
not result in the obliteration of the
right to Philippine citizenship.
Having a Filipino mother is
permanent.It is the basis of the right
of the petitioners to elect Philippine
citizenship.Petitioners elected
Philippine citizenship in form and
substance.The failure to register the
election in the civil registry should
not defeat the election and
resultingly negate the permanent
fact that they have a Filipino

Petitioners have passed decades of

their lives in the Philippines as
Filipinos.Their present status having
been formed by their past,
petitioners can no longer have any
national identity except that which
they chose upon reaching the age
of reason.
Corollary to this fact, we cannot
agree with the view of the Court of
Appeals that since the ACR
presented by the petitioners are no
longer valid on account of the new
requirement to present an E-series
ACR, they are deemed not properly
documented. On the contrary,
petitioners should not be expected
to secure E-series ACR because it
would be inconsistent with the
election of citizenship and its
constructive registration through
their acts made public, among
others, their exercise of suffrage,
election as public official, and
continued and uninterrupted stay in
the Philippines since birth.The
failure to register as aliens is,
obviously, consistent with petitioners
election of Philippine citizenship.
The leanings towards recognition of
the citizenship of children of Filipino
mothers have been indicated not
alone by the jurisprudence that
liberalized the requirement on time
of election, and recognized positive
acts of Philippine citizenship.
The favor that is given to such
children is likewise evident in the
evolution of the constitutional
provision on Philippine citizenship.
Thus, while the 1935 Constitution
requires that children of Filipino
mothers elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching their age of
majority,upon the effectivity of the
1973 Constitution, they
automatically become Filipinos and
need not elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age of
majority.The 1973 provision reads:

registering said oath in the Local

Civil Registry of the place where the
person concerned resides or last
resided.
Moreover, repatriation results in the
recovery of the original nationality.
This means that a naturalized
Filipino who lost his citizenship will
be restored to his prior status as a
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the
other hand, if he was originally a
natural-born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be
restored to his former status as a
natural-born Filipino.
In respondent Cruz's case, he lost
his Filipino citizenship when he
rendered service in the Armed
Forces of the United States.
However, he subsequently
reacquired Philippine citizenship
under R.A. No. 2630.
Having thus taken the required oath
of allegiance to the Republic and
having registered the same in the
Civil Registry of Magantarem,
Pangasinan in accordance with the
aforecited provision, respondent
Cruz is deemed to have recovered
his original status as a natural-born
citizen, a status which he acquired
at birth as the son of a Filipino
father. It bears stressing that the act
of repatriation allows him to recover,
or return to, his original status
before he lost his Philippine
citizenship

What is the effect of repatriation?

Repatriation results in the recovery
[26]
of the original nationality.
This
means that a naturalized Filipino
who lost his citizenship will be
restored to his prior status as a
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the
other hand, if he was originally a
natural-born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be

otherwise known as the Revised

Naturalization Law, which repealed
the former Naturalization Law (Act
No. 2927), and by Republic Act No.
530.11 To be naturalized, an
applicant has to prove that he
possesses all the qualifications12
and none of the disqualification.
Filipino citizens who have lost their
citizenship may however reacquire
the same in the manner provided by
law. Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A.
No. 63), enumerates the three
modes by which Philippine
citizenship may be reacquired by a
former citizen: (1) by naturalization,
(2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct
act of Congress.
Naturalization is mode for both
acquisition and reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship. As a mode of
initially acquiring Philippine
citizenship, naturalization is
governed by Commonwealth Act
No. 473, as amended. On the other
hand, naturalization as a mode for
reacquiring Philippine citizenship is
governed by Commonwealth Act
No. 63.16 Under this law, a former
Filipino citizen who wishes to
reacquire Philippine citizenship
must possess certain qualifications
and none of the disqualification
mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473.
Repatriation, on the other hand,
may be had under various statutes
by those who lost their citizenship
due to: (1) desertion of the armed
forces; services in the armed forces
of the allied forces in World War II;
(3) service in the Armed Forces of
the United States at any other time,
(4) marriage of a Filipino woman to
an alien; and (5) political economic
necessity.
As distinguished from the lengthy
process of naturalization,
repatriation simply consists of the
taking of an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippine and

a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: ANTONIO
BENGSON III, petitioner, vs.
HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
and TEODORO C. CRUZ,
respondents.
d. Citation: [G.R. No.
142840. May 7, 2001]

2. Body :
Facts:
The citizenship of Teodoro Cruz, a
member of the HOR, is being
questioned on the ground that he is
not a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines.
Cruz was born in the Philippines in
1960, the time when the acquisition
of citizenship rule was still jus soli.
However, he enlisted to the US
Marine Corps and he was
naturalized as US citizen in
connection therewith. He reacquired
Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under RA 2630 and ran
for and was elected as a
representative. When his nationality
was questioned by petitioner, the
HRET decided that Cruz was a
natural born citizen of the
Philippines.
Issue: WON Cruz is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines.
Held: YES. Natural-born citizens
"are those citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform
any act to acquire or perfect his
Philippine citezenship." On the other
hand, naturalized citizens are those
who have become Filipino citizens
through naturalization, generally
under Commonwealth Act No. 473,

purpose
of these
contended
sections is to recognize and accept
the supreme authority of the
Philippines and his loyalty to the
Republic.
Further, Rep. Locsin averred that
doing what section 2 and 3 say, the
problem of dual citizenship is
transferred from the Philippines to
the foreign country because the
latest oath that will be taken by the
former Filipino is one of the
allegiance to the Philippines and to
the United States, as the case may
be. And by swearing to the supreme
authority of the Republic, the person
implicitly renounces his foreign
citizenship.
Further it was held that the bill
recognizes the Philippine citizenship
but says nothing about the other
citizenship.

Wherefore the petition is denied.

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: Co Vs. HRET
d. Citation: G.R. Nos.
92191-92 July 30, 1991

b. Topic:
c. Title: CALILUNG,
Petitioner, Vs. Dumatung

d. Citation: G.R. No. 160869

2. Body :

Dual citizenship
FACTS:
Petitioner herein prays for the
prohibition to stop the respondent
from implementing RA 9225 (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. Petitioner avers the
constitutionality
of
RA 9225,
specifically its Section 3 and 3:

restored to his former status as a

natural-born Filipino.

Is a former natural born citizen who

is repatriated considered natural
born considering he has to perform
an act to perfect his reacquired
citizenship?
Moreover, repatriation results in the
recovery of the original
[26]
nationality.
This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his
citizenship will be restored to his
prior status as a naturalized Filipino
citizen. On the other hand, if he was
originally a natural-born citizen
before he lost his Philippine
citizenship, he will be restored to his
former status as a natural-born
Filipino.

Section 2: Declaration of Policy: It is

hereby declared the policy of the
State that all Philippine Citizens
who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to
have lost their Philippine citizenship
under the condition of this Act.
Section 3: Retention of Philippine
Citizenship: Any provision of law to
the
contrary
notwithstanding,
natural-born
citizens
of
the
Philippines who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed
to have reacquired Philippine
citizenship upon taking the following
oath of allegiance to the Republic.

When Should the repatriation be

reckoned ?

Having thus taken the required oath

of allegiance to the Republic and
having registered the same in the
Civil Registry of Magantarem,

ISSUE:
Whether sections 2 and 3 of RA
9225, together allow dual allegiance
and not dual citizenship.
HELD:
During the deliberation of the
Congress, it was clarified that the

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1

meantime, Jose Ong Chuan, unsure

of his legal status and in an
unequivocal affirmation of where he
cast his life and family, filed with the
Court of First Instance of Samar an
application for naturalization on
February 15, 1954.

On April 28, 1955,

the CFI of Samar, after trial,
declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino
citizen. On May 15, 1957, the Court
of First Instance of Samar issued an
order declaring the decision of April
28, 1955 as final and executory and
that Jose Ong Chuan may already
take his Oath of Allegiance.

Pursuant to said
order, Jose Ong Chuan took his
Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly,
a certificate of naturalization was
issued to him. During this time, Jose
Ong (private respondent) was 9
years old, finishing his elementary
education in the province of Samar.
There is nothing in the records to
differentiate him from other Filipinos
insofar as the customs and
practices of the local populace were
concerned.

After completing
his elementary education, the
private respondent, in search for
better education, went to Manila in
order to acquire his secondary and
college education.

Jose Ong
graduated from college, and
thereafter took and passed the CPA
Board Examinations. Since
employment opportunities were
better in Manila, the respondent
looked for work here. He found a job
in the Central Bank of the
Philippines as an examiner. Later,
however, he worked in the hardware
business of his family in Manila.

In 1971, his elder

brother, Emil, was elected as a
delegate to the 1971 Constitutional
Convention. His status as a natural
born citizen was challenged.
Parenthetically, the Convention
which in drafting the Constitution
removed the unequal treatment

Hence, these
petitions for certiorari.
Issue:

2. Body :

WON Jose Ong,

Jr. is a natural born citizen of the
Philippines.

En Banc
Doctrine: citizenship
Date: July 30, 1991
Ponente: Justice Gutierrez Jr.

Held: Yes. Petitions are dismissed.

Facts:

Ratio:

The records show

that in the year 1895, Ong Te (Jose
Ong's grandfather), arrived in the
Philippines from China. Ong Te
established his residence in the
municipality of Laoang, Samar on
land which he bought from the fruits
of hard work.

As a resident of
Laoang, Ong Te was able to obtain
a certificate of residence from the
then Spanish colonial
administration.

The father of the

private respondent, Jose Ong
Chuan was born in China in 1905.
He was brought by Ong Te to
Samar in the year 1915. Jose Ong
Chuan spent his childhood in the
province of Samar.

As Jose Ong
Chuan grew older in the rural and
seaside community of Laoang, he
absorbed Filipino cultural values
and practices. He was baptized into
Christianity. As the years passed,
Jose Ong Chuan met a natural
born-Filipino, Agripina Lao. The two
fell in love and, thereafter, got
married in 1932 according to
Catholic faith and practice.

The couple bore

eight children, one of whom is the
Jose Ong who was born in 1948.

Jose Ong Chuan

never emigrated from this country.
He decided to put up a hardware
store and shared and survived the
vicissitudes of life in Samar.

The business
prospered. Expansion became
inevitable. As a result, a branch was
set-up in Binondo, Manila. In the

The petitioners
come to this Court asking for the
setting aside and reversal of a
decision of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET).

The HRET
declared that respondent Jose Ong,
Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen
and a resident of Laoang, Northern
Samar for voting purposes.

On May 11, 1987,

the congressional election for the
second district of Northern Samar
was held.

Among the
candidates who vied for the position
of representative in the second
legislative district of Northern Samar
are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit
and Antonio Co and the private
respondent, Jose Ong, Jr.

Respondent Ong
was proclaimed the duly elected
representative of the second district
of Northern Samar.

The petitioners
filed election protests against the
private respondent premised on the
following grounds:

1)Jose Ong, Jr. is

not a natural born citizen of the
Philippines; and

2)Jose Ong, Jr. is

not a resident of the second district
of Northern Samar.

The HRET in its

decision dated November 6, 1989,
found for the private respondent.

A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the
petitioners on November 12, 1989.
This was, however, denied by the
HRET in its resolution dated
February 22, 1989.

because of his premature taking of

the oath of citizenship.

SC: The Court

cannot go into the collateral
procedure of stripping respondents
father of his citizenship after his
death. An attack on a persons
citizenship may only be done
through a direct action for its nullity,
therefore, to ask the Court to
declare the grant of Philippine
citizenship to respondents father as
null and void would run against the
principle of due process because he
has already been laid to rest

Additional
Effect of Naturalization to Minor
children

While under Section 15 of the

Revised Naturalization Law (C.A.
473) minor children of a naturalized
citizen (father),
who were born in the Philippines
prior to the naturalization of the
parent automatically become
8
Filipino citizens, this does not alter
the fact that private respondent was
not born to a Filipino father, and the
operation of Section 15 of CA 473
did not confer upon him the status
of a natural-born citizen merely
because he did not have to perform
any act to acquire or perfect his
status as a Filipino citizen.

Is the child Considered natural born

for the purpose of running for the
elections

mother was automatically granted

the status of a natural-born citizen
while one born of a Filipino mother
and an alien father would still have
to elect Philippine citizenship. If one
so elected, he was not, under
earlier laws, conferred the status of
a natural-born

Election becomes
material because Section 2 of
Article IV of the Constitution
accords natural born status to
children born of Filipino mothers
before January 17, 1973, if they
elect citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority.

To expect the
respondent to have formally or in
writing elected citizenship when he
came of age is to ask for the
unnatural and unnecessary. He was
already a citizen. Not only was his
mother a natural born citizen but his
father had been naturalized when
the respondent was only nine (9)
years old.

He could not have

divined when he came of age that in
1973 and 1987 the Constitution
would be amended to require him to
have filed a sworn statement in
1969 electing citizenship inspite of
his already having been a citizen
since 1957.

In 1969, election
through a sworn statement would
have been an unusual and
unnecessary procedure for one who
had been a citizen since he was
nine years old

In Re: Florencio
Mallare: the Court held that the
exercise of the right of suffrage and
the participation in election
exercises constitute a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship

The private
respondent did more than merely
exercise his right of suffrage. He
has established his life here in the
Philippines.

Petitioners
alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was
not validly a naturalized citizen

given to derived citizenship on the

basis of the mother's citizenship
formally and solemnly declared Emil
Ong, respondent's full brother, as a
natural born Filipino. The
Constitutional Convention had to be
aware of the meaning of natural
born citizenship since it was
precisely amending the article on
this subject.

The pertinent
portions of the Constitution found in
Article IV read:

SECTION 1, the
following are citizens of the
Philippines:
[if !supportLists]1.
[endif]Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution;
[if !supportLists]2.
[endif]Those whose fathers or
mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
[if !supportLists]3.
[endif]Those born before January
17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
[if !supportLists]4.
[endif]Those who are naturalized in
accordance with law.

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
citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph 3 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.

The Court
interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3
above as applying not only to those
who elect Philippine citizenship
after February 2, 1987 but also to
those who, having been born of
Filipino mothers, elected citizenship
before that date. The provision in
question was enacted to correct the
anomalous situation where one
born of a Filipino father and an alien

1991 Poe went to the US to be a

permanent resident therein
2001 She became a naturalized
US citizen
First quarter of 2005 she came
back to the Philippines to
permanently reside herein
February 14, 2006- she went back
to the US to dispose family
belongings
uly 18, 2006 she re-acquired
Filipino citizenship
According to Poe in her 2013 COC
for Senator, before the May 13,
2013 election, she has been a
resident of the Philippines for 6
years and 6 months (reckoned from
year 2006 when she re-acquired
her Filipino citizenship under RA
9225).
Poe filed her COC for Presidency
for the May 9, 2016 elections
(hence, computing from May, 2013,
she has been a resident in the
Philippines for 9 years and 6
months only)
However, in her COC, Poe declared
that she is a natural born and her
residence in the Philippine up to the
day before election would be 10
years and 11 months counted from
May 24, 2005 (when she returned
from the US to the Philippines for
good).
RULING OF THE SUPREME
COURT
Poe is qualified to be a candidate
for President in the National and
Local Election on May 9, 2016.

Issues
Is Poe, a foundling, a natural-born
citizen? Yes, based on:
Circumstantial evidence
Legislation
Generally accepted principles of
international law

Circumstantial evidence

2004 and ran for public office.

ISSUE:
Whether or not private
respondent Tambunting is eligible
for
public office?
DESICION:
Yes he is eligible for public office.
HELD:
The fact that he had dual citizenship
did not disqualify him from
running for public office. In a
previous case decided by the
Supreme Court it was held that dual
citizenship is not a ground
for disqualification from running for
any elective local position. In
cases of dual citizenship, where it is
most of the time involuntary
to be one, when they run for public
office they just have to elect
their Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship. The problem
posits when it is an issue of
dual allegiance, which may be
a ground for disqualification,
because it is a result of ones
volition. One simply cannot govern
a place where their allegiance is not
fully dedicated to the place where
they ought to serve.

GRACE POE vs. COMELEC

The Case
Grace Poe was found abandoned
as a newborn infant in the Parish
Church of Jaro, Iloilo by Edgardo
Militar in 1968. Parental care and
custody over her was passed on by
Edgardo to his relatives, Emiliano
Militar and his wife. Emiliano
reported and registered Grace Poe
as a foundling with the Office of the
Civil Registrar of Iloilo City. Fenando
Poe, Jr. and Susan Roces adopted
Grace Poe.

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: GAUDENCIO M.
CORDORA, petitioner vs.
Commission on Elections,
Respondents
d. Citation: G.R. No. 176947

2. Body :
Cordora v COMELEC
FACTS:
Petitioner alleges that private
respondent Tambunting is not
eligible to run for public office
because he lacked citizenship
requirements and residency
requirements necessary for said
office. Petitioner claims that
Tambunting is not a Filipino citizen
but a naturalized American
citizen. Tambunting on the other
hand says that he is born of a
Filipino mother and an American
father therefore making him a dual
citizen and not a naturalized
American citizen. Private
respondent also stated that he took
an
oath of allegiance by virtue of R.A.
9225 (Citizen Retention and
Reacquisition act of 2003) and
he resided in the Philippines
since birth.
The COMELEC dismissed the
complaint because petitioner
failed to substantiate his claim
but commissioner Sarmiento
pointed out that Tambunting can be
considered a person with
dual citizenship but he
effectively renounced his
American
citizenship when he filed the
certificate of candidacy in 2001 and

her Oath of Allegiance to the

Republic of the Philippines, has Poe
re-acquired her status as a naturalborn Filipino citizen? Yes, Poes
repatriation resulted to
reacquisition of natural born
citizenship.
A natural born citizen before he lost
his Philippine nationality will be
restored to his former status as
natural
born
Filipino
after
repatriation (Benson v. HRET,
Pareno v. Commission on Audit
etc).

Has Poe satisfied the 10 year

residency requirement? Yes, she
will have been a resident for 10
years and 11 months on the day
of the election.
[T]here is overwhelming evidence
that leads to no to other conclusion
that Poe decided to permanently
abandon her US residence and
reside in the Philippines as early as
May 24, 2005.
Poe presented voluminous evidence
showing that she and her family
abandoned their US domicile and
relocated to the Philippines for
good. These evidence include
former US passport showing her
arrival on May 24, 2005 and her
return to the Philippines every time
she
travelled
abroad,
email
correspondences
with
freight
company to arrange for the
shipment of household items as well
as with the pet Bureau; school
records of her children showing
enrolment in the Philippine to the
Philippine schools starting on June
2005 etc. xxx These evidence,
coupled
with
her
eventual
application to reacquire Philippine
citizenship is clear that when she
returned in May 2005, it was for
good.

Likewise, domestic laws on

adoption support the principle that
foundlings are Filipinos. These laws
do not provide that adoption confers
citizenship upon the adoptee, rather,
the adoptee must be Filipino in the
first place to be adopted.
Recent legislation all expressly
refer to Filipino children and
include foundlings as among
Filipino children who may be
adopted.

Generally accepted principles of

international law
The common thread of the
Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the
International Convent on Civil
and Political Rights obligates the
Philippines to grant nationality from
birth and to ensure that no child is
stateless. The principles stated in
the:
Hague Convention on Certain
Questions Relation to the Conflict of
Nationality laws (that a foundling is
presumed to have the nationality of
the country of birth)
2.
Convention on the Reduction
of Statelessness (foundling is
presumed born of citizens of the
country where he is found)
bind the Philippines although we are
not signatory to these conventions.
Poes evidence shows that at least
60 countries in Asia, North and
South America and Europe have
passed
legislation
recognizing
foundlings as its citizens. 166 out of
189 countries accept that foundlings
are recognized as citizens. Hence,
there is a generally accepted
principle of international law to
presume foundlings as having been
born and a national of the country in
which it is found.

After renouncing her American

citizenship and after having taken

There is more than sufficient

evidence that Poe has Filipino
parents and is therefore a naturalborn Filipino. xxx. [T]here is a high
probability that her parents are
Filipinos. The Solicitor General
offered official Statistics from the
Philippine Statistics office that from
1965 to 1975, the total number of
foreigners born in the Philippines
was 15,985. While the Filipinos born
in the country were more than 10
Million. On this basis, there is a
99% chance that the child born in
the Philippines would be a Filipino
which in turn, would indicate more
than ample probability that Poes
parents are Filipinos.
Other circumstantial evidence of the
nationality of Poes parents are the
fact that:
1. She was abandoned in a Roman
Catholic Church in Iloilo
2. She has typical Filipino features.
There are disputable presumptions
that
things
have
happened
according to the ordinary course of
nature. On this basis, it is safer to
assume that Poes parents are
Filipinos. To assume otherwise is to
accept the absurd.

Legislation
Foundlings are as a class, natural
born citizens.
The amendment to the
Constitution proposed by
constitutionalist Rafols to include
foundlings as natural born citizens
was not carried out, not because
there was any objection to the
notion that persons of unknown
parentage are not citizens, but only
because their number was not
enough to merit specific mention.
There was no intent or language
that would permit discrimination
against foundlings. On the contrary,
all three Constitutions guarantee the
basic right to equal protection of the
laws.

judicata and binding to the

government and to the world.

(Personal Record, No. 17450, Bar

Division)

Complainant Vivo disputed, on the

facts, the respondent's first theory,
and, on the second theory, claimed
that the aforestated Civil Case No.
329-G (Itable vs. Mallare) was a
simulated action calculated to
obtain a judicial declaration of
Philippine citizenship and, after
having obtained the said
declaration, the respondent,
together with his brothers and
sisters, utilized the declaration to
change their birth and alien
registration the better to hide their
true nationality, which is Chinese.

On 16 July 1962, the then Acting

Commissioner of Immigration
Martiniano P. Vivo denounced the
respondent to this Court as a
Chinaman masquerading as a
Filipino citizen and requested that
the matter be investigated
thoroughly and if the respondent
fails to show that he has legally
become a Filipino, steps be taken
for striking his name from the roll of
persons authorized to practice law.
Acting upon the request, this Court,
on 9 August 1962, referred the
matter to its Legal OfficerInvestigator for investigation and
report. An investigation was thus
held wherein the relator or
complainant and the respondent
appeared and adduced their
respective evidence.

The respondent denies the charge

of simulating an action; and by way
of defense, points out that Civil
Case No. 329-G and Special
Proceeding No. 3925 are not
subject to collateral attack and,
since his birth record and alien
registration (and that of his brothers
and sisters) have been corrected
and cancelled, respectively, the
question of their citizenship is now
moot and academic.

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: Nestor Jacot Vs.
Rogen Dal and Comelec
,respondents
d. Citation: G.R. No. 179848

2. Body :
Jacot v. Comelec
G.R. No. 179848 November 27,
2008
Facts:

The position of the respondentlawyer is that he is a Filipino citizen

based on the supposed citizenship
of his father, Esteban Mallare,
alleged to be a Filipino citizen by
choice, because he was the
illegitimate son of a Chinese father
and a Filipina mother, Ana Mallare
and that the respondent's mother,
Te Na, a Chinese, followed the
citizenship of her husband upon
their marriage.
The respondent's second theory is
that, having been declared a Filipino
citizen in a final judgment in 1960
by the Court of First Instance of
Quezon province, in its Civil Case
No. 329-G (entitled, Vitaliano Itable
vs. Artemio, Florencio, Paciencia,
Esperanza and Raymundo Mallare)
and his birth record, wherein he was
originally registered as a Chinese,
has likewise been ordered corrected
to Filipino, by final judgment in
Special Proceeding No. 3925 of
1
the same court, his Filipino
citizenship is conclusive, res

Poe was able to prove that her

statement in her 2013 COC was
only a mistake in good faith. As
explained by Grace Poe, she
misunderstood the date required in
the 2013 COC as the period of
residence as of the day she
submitted that COC in 2012. She
said that she reckoned residency
from April-May 2006 which was the
period when the U.S. house was
sold and her husband returned to
the Philippines. In that regard, she
was advised by her lawyers in 2015
that residence could be counted
from 25 May 2005. Such a mistake
could be given in evidence against
her but it was by no means
conclusive
considering
the
overwhelming evidence submitted
by Poe.

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: IN RE: FLORENCIO
MALLARE. REYES
d. Citation: A.M. No. 533

2. Body :

Facts: The respondent, Florencio

Mallare, was admitted to the
practice of law on 5 March 1962.
In his verified petition to take the
bar examinations in 1961, he
alleged that he is a citizen of the
Philippines and that "his father is
Esteban Mallare and his mother
is Te Na, both Filipino citizens".

any and all foreign citizenship

before any public officer authorized

Is there a difference between the

manner of renunciation of alien
citizens before one is qualified to
run as compared to the manzano
case? is the mere filing of the
certificate of candidacy an effective
renunciation?
LIMKAICHONG VS COMELEC
Posted by kaye lee on 11:32 PM

G.R. No. 178831-32, 30 July 2009

[Citizenship; Naturalization; C.A.
No. 473]
FACTS:
Two petitions were consolidated on
the issue about the qualifications of
Jocelyn Limkaichong to run for, be
elected to, and assume and
discharge the position as
Representative of the 1st District of
Negros Oriental. The contention of
the parties who sought her
disqualification is that she is not a
natural-born citizen, hence, she
lacks the citizenship requirement in
Section 6, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. In the election that
ensued, she was voted for by the
constituents of Negros Oriental and
garnered the highest votes. She
was eventually proclaimed as the
winner and has since performed her
duties and responsibilities as
Member of the House of
Representatives.

under Republic Act No. 9225 should

not only take their oath of allegiance
to the Republic of the Philippines,
but also to explicitly renounce their
foreign citizenship if they wish to run
for elective posts in the Philippines.
A candidate in Philippine elections
must only have one citizenship, that
is, Philippine citizenship. This the
petitioner fails to do.
A candidate who failed to comply
with the election requirements
applicable to dual citizens and
received the highest number of
votes for an elective position does
not dispense with, or amount to a
waiver
of,
the
citizenship
requirement. The will of the people
as expressed through the ballot
cannot
cure
the
ineligibility,
especially
if
they
mistakenly
believed that the candidate was
qualified. The rules on citizenship
qualifications of a candidate must
be strictly applied. The application
of the constitutional and statutory
provisions on disqualification is not
a matter of popularity. The appeal
was DISMISSED.
Comelec
Resolution was AFFIRMED and
petitioner was DISQUALIFIED.

Are dual citizen after The Dual

Citizen Act qualified to run for public
office?
No. Failure to renounce foreign
citizenship in accordance with the
exact tenor of Section 5 (2) of RA
9225 renders a dual citizen
ineligible to run for and thus hold
any elective public office,
(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

Petitioner Jacot assails Comelec

Resolution
affirming
his
disqualification from running for the
position of Vice-Mayor for failure to
comply the citizenship requirement.
Petitioner was a natural born citizen
of the Philippines, who became a
naturalized U.S citizen. Petitioner
sought to reacquire his Philippine
citizenship under R.A No. 9225. Six
months after, petitioner filed his
Certificate
of
Candidacy.
Respondent Dal filed a Petition for
Disqualification before
the
COMELEC
against
petitioner
arguing that the latter failed to
renounce his US citizenship, as
required under Section 5(2) of
Republic Act No. 9225 for holding
such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws.
When the local and national
elections were held petitioner
garnered the highest number of
votes for the position of Vice Mayor.
Thereafter, COMELEC finally issued
its
Resolution disqualifying
the
petitioner. Petitioner filed a Motion
for Reconsideration which was
dismissed for lack of merit.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has validly
comply the citizenship requirement
as required by law for persons
seeking public office.
Ruling:
No. R.A 9225 requires that naturalborn citizens of the Philippines, who
are already naturalized citizens of a
foreign country, must take the
following oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines to
reacquire or retain their Philippine
citizenship. It specifically provides
that public office in the Philippines
should meet the Constitutional
requirements and existing laws. 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. Filipinos reacquiring or
retaining their Philippine citizenship

In his answer, Manzano admitted

that he is registered as a foreigner
with the Bureau of Immigration and
alleged that he is a Filipino citizen
because he was born in 1955 of a
Filipino father and a Filipino mother.
He was born in the United States
(San Francisco, CA) on Sept. 14,
1955 and is considered an
American citizen under US laws (jus
soli). But notwithstanding his
registration as an American citizen,
he did not lose his Filipino
citizenship.

3) No. The ten-day prescriptive

period under the 1998 HRET Rules
does not apply to disqualification
based on citizenship, because
qualifications for public office are
continuing requirements and must
be possessed not only at the time of
appointment or election or
assumption of office but during the
officer's entire tenure.

1.Reference :
The Second Division of the
COMELEC granted the petition and
cancelled Manzanos certificate of
candidacy on the ground that he is
a dual citizen. Under the Local
Government Code (sec. 40), dual
citizens are disqualified from
running for any position.
The COMELEC en banc reversed
the divisions ruling. In its resolution,
it said that Manzano was both a US
citizen and a Filipino citizen. It
further ruled that although he was
registered as an alien with the
Philippine Bureau of Immigration
and was using an American
passport, this did not result in the
loss of his Philippine citizenship, as
he did not renounce Philippine
citizenship and did not take an oath
of allegiance to the US. Moreover,
the COMELEC found that when
respondent attained the age of
majority, he registered himself as a
Philippine voter and voted as such,
which effectively renounced his US
citizenship under American law.
Under Philippine law, he no longer
had US citizenship.
Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUES:

Whether or not
Manzano was no longer a US
citizen

a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: ERNESTO S.
MERCADO, petitioner, vs.
EDUARDO BARRIOS
MANZANO and the
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, respondents.
d. Citation: G.R. No. 135083.
May 26, 1999

2. Body :
G.R. No. 135083, May 26,
1999

Dual allegiance.
vs. Dual citizenship

Effect of filing
certificate of candidacy: repudiation
of other citizenship
FACTS:
Manzano and Mercado are vicemayoral candidates Makati City in
the May 11, 1998 elections.
Manzano got the highest number
votes while Mercado bagged the
second place. However, Manzanos
proclamation was suspended in
view of a pending petition for
disqualification on the ground that
he is an American citizen.

The proponents against

Limkaichong's qualification stated
that she is not a natural-born citizen
because her parents were Chinese
citizens at the time of her birth.
They went on to claim that the
proceedings for the naturalization of
Julio Ong Sy, her father, never
attained finality due to procedural
and substantial defects.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the citizenship of
Limkaichong's parents may be
questioned in an election case.
2) Whether or not the HRET should
assume jurisdiction over the
disqualification case.
3) Whether or not the 10-day
prescriptive period under 1998
HRET Rules apply to
disqualification based on
citizenship.
RULINGS:
1) No. The proper proceeding in
cancelling the naturalization
certificate of one person should be
in accordance with Section 18 of CA
No. 473. Clearly under the law and
jurisprudence, it is the State,
through the Solicitor General or the
representative designated by
statute, that may question in the
appropriate denaturalization
proceeding.
2) Yes. Limkaichong was
proclaimed by the Provincial Board
of Canvassers, she had taken her
oath of office, and she was allowed
to officially assume office on July
23, 2007. Accordingly, the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal,
and no longer the COMELEC,
should now assume the jurisdiction
over the disqualification case.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and in Section 2509 of
the OEC underscore the exclusivity
of the Electoral Tribunal's
jurisdiction over election contests
relating to its members.

PETITIONERS ELECTION OF
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
The COMELEC en bancs ruling
was that Manzanos act of
registering himself as a voter was
an effective renunciation of his
American citizenship. This ruling is
in line with the US Immigration and
Nationality Act wherein it is provided
that a person who is a national of
the United States, whether by birth
or naturalization, shall lose his
nationality by: (e) Voting in a
political election in a foreign state or
participating in an election or
plebiscite to determine the
sovereignty over foreign territory.
But this provision was declared
unconstitutional by the US Supreme
Court. Nevertheless, our SC held
that by filing a certificate of
candidacy when he ran for his
present post, private respondent
elected Philippine citizenship and in
effect renounced his American
citizenship.
To recapitulate, by declaring in his
certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a
permanent resident or immigrant of
another country; that he will defend
and support the Constitution of the
Philippines and bear true faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does
so without mental reservation,
private respondent has, as far as
the laws of this country are
concerned, effectively repudiated
his American citizenship and
anything which he may have said
before as a dual citizen.
On the other hand, private
respondents oath of allegiance to
the Philippines, when considered
with the fact that he has spent his
youth and adulthood, received his
education, practiced his profession
as an artist, and taken part in past
elections in this country, leaves no

There may be other situations in

which a citizen of the Philippines
may, without performing any act, be
also a citizen of another state; but
the above cases are clearly possible
given the constitutional provisions
on citizenship.

Whether or not
Manzano is qualified to run for
and hold elective office

Dual allegiance, on the other hand,

refers to the situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by
some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states. While dual citizenship
is involuntary, dual allegiance is the
result of an individuals volition.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP AS A
GROUND FOR
DISQUALIFICATION

LGC prohibits Dual Allegiance not

Dual Citizenship
The phrase dual citizenship in the
LGC must be understood as
referring to dual allegiance.
Consequently, persons with mere
dual citizenship do not fall under
this disqualification. Unlike those
with dual allegiance, who must,
therefore, be subject to strict
process with respect to the
termination of their status, for
candidates with dual citizenship, it
would suffice if, upon the filing of
their certificates of candidacy, they
elect Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship considering
that their condition is the
unavoidable consequence of
conflicting laws of different states.
By Electing Philippine Citizenship,
the Candidate forswear Allegiance
to the Other Country
By electing Philippine citizenship,
such candidates at the same time
forswear allegiance to the other
country of which they are also
citizens and thereby terminate their
status as dual citizens. It may be
that, from the point of view of the
foreign state and of its laws, such
an individual has not effectively
renounced his foreign citizenship.
That is of no moment.

HELD:

Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance

To begin with, dual citizenship is
different from dual allegiance. The
former arises when, as a result of
the concurrent application of the
different laws of two or more states,
a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said
states. For instance, such a
situation may arise when a person
whose parents are citizens of a
state which adheres to the principle
of jus sanguinis is born in a state
which follows the doctrine of jus
soli. Such a person, ipso facto and
without any voluntary act on his
part, is concurrently considered a
citizen of both states. Considering
the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of
our Constitution, it is possible for
the following classes of citizens of
the Philippines to possess dual
citizenship:
1.
Those born of
Filipino fathers and/or mothers in
foreign countries which follow the
principle of jus soli;
2.
Those born in the
Philippines of Filipino mothers and
alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers country such children are
citizens of that country;
3.
Those who marry
aliens if by the laws of the latters
country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship.

After repeated extensions, Lau

Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in
the Philippines up to 13 February
1962. On 25 January 1962, she
contracted marriage with Moy Ya
Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo
Lim an alleged Filipino citizen.
Because of the contemplated action
of the Commissioner of Immigration
to confiscate her bond and order
her
arrest
and
immediate
deportation, after the expiration of
her authorized stay, she brought an
action for injunction. At the hearing
which took place one and a half
years after her arrival, it was
admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could
not write and speak either English
or Tagalog, except for a few words.
She could not name any Filipino
neighbor, with a Filipino name
except one, Rosa. She did not know
the names of her brothers-in-law, or
sisters-in-law. As a result, the Court
of First Instance of Manila denied
the prayer for preliminary injunction.
Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung
appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung
ipso facto became a Filipino citizen
upon her marriage to a Filipino
citizen.
HELD:
Under Section 15 of Commonwealth
Act 473, an alien woman marrying a
Filipino, native born or naturalized,
becomes ipso facto a Filipina
provided she is not disqualified to
be a citizen of the Philippines under
Section 4 of the same law. Likewise,
an alien woman married to an alien
who is subsequently naturalized
here
follows
the
Philippine
citizenship of her husband the
moment he takes his oath as
Filipino citizen, provided that she
does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under said Section
4. Whether the alien woman
requires
to
undergo
the

To recapitulate, by declaring in his

certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a
permanent resident or immigrant of
another country; that he will defend
and support the Constitution of the
Philippines and bear true faith and
allegiance thereto and that he does
so without mental reservation,
private respondent has, as far as
the laws of this country are
concerned, effectively repudiated
his American citizenship and
anything which he may have said
before as a dual citizen.

MOY YA LIM YAO VS.

COMMISSIONER OF
IMMIGRATION
G.R. No. L-21289, October 4 1971,
41 SCRA 292
FACTS:
Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a
passport visa to enter the
Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8
February 1961. In the interrogation
made in connection with her
application for a temporary visitor's
visa to enter the Philippines, she
stated that she was a Chinese
residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and
that she desired to take a pleasure
trip to the Philippines to visit her
great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping.
She was permitted to come into the
Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a
period of one month.
On the date of her arrival, Asher Y.
Cheng filed a bond in the amount of
P1,000.00 to undertake, among
others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung
would actually depart from the
Philippines on or before the
expiration of her authorized period
of stay in this country or within the
period as in his discretion the
Commissioner of Immigration or his
authorized representative might
properly allow.

doubt of his election of Philippine

citizenship.
His declarations will be taken upon
the faith that he will fulfil his
undertaking made under oath.
Should he betray that trust, there
are enough sanctions for declaring
the loss of his Philippine citizenship
through expatriation in appropriate
proceedings. In Yu v. DefensorSantiago, we sustained the denial of
entry into the country of petitioner
on the ground that, after taking his
oath as a naturalized citizen, he
applied for the renewal of his
Portuguese passport and declared
in commercial documents executed
abroad that he was a Portuguese
national. A similar sanction can be
taken against any one who, in
electing Philippine citizenship,
renounces his foreign nationality,
but subsequently does some act
constituting renunciation of his
Philippine citizenship.

Are Dual Citizens before the dual

citizen act qualified to run for public
office?
Under Section 40(d) of the Local
Government Code, those holding
dual citizenship are disqualified
from running for any elective local
position.

What is the effect of filing of ones

certificate of candidacy on his alien
citizenship?

conducted by a special prosecutor

he was charged of violating Section
8, Chapter 3, Title 1, Book 3 of the
1987 Administrative Code.
Petitioner contends that he
reacquired Philippine Citizenship
through repatriation under the R.A
8171.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner has

validly reacquired Philippine
citizenship under RA 8171.
RULING: RA 8171, "An Act
Providing for the Repatriation of
Filipino Women Who Have Lost
Their Philippine citizenship by
Marriage to Aliens and of NaturalBorn Filipinos," It provides for the
repatriation of only two (2) classes
of persons:
Filipino women who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to
aliens and natural-born Filipinos
who have lost their Philippine
citizenship, including their minor
children, on account of political or
economic necessity, may reacquire
Philippine
citizenship
through
repatriation.
Petitioner here failed to prove that
his
parents
abandoned
their
Philippine citizenship by reason of
political or economic necessity as
provided for in the law. Petitioner
likewise contends that as he
reacquired Philippine Citizenship he
is not an undocumented alien
subject to summary deportation.
The Court in its decision held that
the theory of the Petitioner is
improper as the latter is not entitled
for repatriation under R.A 8171for
he has not shown that his case falls
within the coverage of the law. The
Petitioners petition for review is
dismissed by the SC.

What is the effect of an alien

woman to a filipino? before 1987
constitution
Under Section 15 of Commonwealth
Act 473, an alien woman marrying a
Filipino, native born or naturalized,
becomes ipso facto a Filipina
provided she is not disqualified to
be a citizen of the Philippines under
Section 4 of the same law. Likewise,
an alien woman married to an alien
who is subsequently naturalized
here
follows
the
Philippine
citizenship of her husband the
moment he takes his oath as
Filipino citizen, provided that she
does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under said Section
4.

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic:
c. Title: Tabasa Vs. Court
of appeals
d. Citation: G.R. No. 125793

2. Body :
FACTS: Petitioner Tabasa herein
was a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. When Petitioner was
seven years old his father Rodolfo
Tabasa became a naturalized
citizen of U.S.A. By derivative
naturalization, petitioner also
acquired American Citizenship. In
1995, Petitioner arrived in the
Philippines; thereafter the latter was
arrested and detained by an agent
of BID. The Consul General of the
US informed The Bureau that the
Petitioners passport has been
revoked and that the latter has
pending federal warrant of arrest.
After an investigation was

naturalization proceedings, Section

15 is a parallel provision to Section
16. Thus, if the widow of an
applicant for naturalization as
Filipino, who dies during the
proceedings, is not required to go
through
a
naturalization
proceedings, in order to be
considered as a Filipino citizen
hereof, it should follow that the wife
of a living Filipino cannot be denied
the same privilege.
This is plain common sense and
there is absolutely no evidence that
the Legislature intended to treat
them differently. As the laws of our
country, both substantive and
procedural, stand today, there is no
such procedure (a substitute for
naturalization proceeding to enable
the alien wife of a Philippine citizen
to have the matter of her own
citizenship settled and established
so that she may not have to be
called upon to prove it everytime
she has to perform an act or enter
into a transaction or business or
exercise a right reserved only to
Filipinos), but such is no proof that
the citizenship is not vested as of
the date of marriage or the
husband's acquisition of citizenship,
as the case may be, for the truth is
that the situation obtains even as to
native-born Filipinos. Everytime the
citizenship of a person is material or
indispensible in a judicial or
administrative case. Whatever the
corresponding court or
administrative authority decides
therein as to such citizenship is
generally not considered as res
adjudicata, hence it has to be
threshed out again and again as the
occasion may demand. Lau Yuen
Yeung, was declared to have
become a Filipino citizen from and
by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya
Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo
Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25 January
1962.

certified photocopy of an affidavit

executed in Spanish by Paulita Poe
y Gomez attesting to her having
filed a case for bigamy and
concubinage against the father of
respondent, Allan F. Poe, after
discovering his bigamous
relationship with Bessie Kelley, 3)
an English translation of the affidavit
aforesaid, 4) a certified photocopy
of the certificate of birth of Allan F.
Poe, 5) a certification issued by the
Director of the Records
Management and Archives Office,
attesting to the fact that there was
no record in the National Archives
that a Lorenzo Poe or Lorenzo Pou
resided or entered the Philippines
before 1907, and 6) a certification
from the Officer-In-Charge of the
Archives Division of the National
Archives to the effect that no
available information could be found
in the files of the National Archives
regarding the birth of Allan F. Poe.
On his part, respondent, presented
twenty-two documentary pieces of
evidence, the more significant ones
being - a) a certification issued by
Estrella M. Domingo of the Archives
Division of the National Archives
that there appeared to be no
available information regarding the
birth of Allan F. Poe in the registry of
births for San Carlos, Pangasinan,
b) a certification issued by the
Officer-In- Charge of the Archives
Division of the National Archives
that no available information about
the marriage of Allan F. Poe and
Paulita Gomez could be found, c) a
certificate of birth of Ronald Allan
Poe, d) Original Certificate of Title
No. P-2247 of the Registry of Deeds
for the Province of Pangasinan, in
the name of Lorenzo Pou, e) copies
of Tax Declaration No. 20844, No.
20643, No 23477 and No. 23478 in
the name of Lorenzo Pou, f) a copy
of the certificate of death of Lorenzo
Pou, g) a copy of the purported
marriage contract between
Fernando Pou and Bessie Kelley,

elections. In his certificate of

candidacy, FPJ, representing
himself to be a natural-born citizen
of the Philippines, stated his name
to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald
Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20
August 1939 and his place of birth
to be Manila.
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner in
G.R. No. 161824, entitled "Victorino
X. Fornier, Petitioner, versus Hon.
Commission on Elections and
Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, also
known as Fernando Poe, Jr.,
Respondents," initiated, on 09
January 2004, a petition docketed
SPA No. 04-003 before the
Commission on Elections
("COMELEC") to disqualify FPJ and
to deny due course or to cancel his
certificate of candidacy upon the
thesis that FPJ made a material
misrepresentation in his certificate
of candidacy by claiming to be a
natural-born Filipino citizen when in
truth, according to Fornier, his
parents were foreigners; his mother,
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an
American, and his father, Allan Poe,
was a Spanish national, being the
son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish
subject. Granting, petitioner
asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was
a Filipino citizen, he could not have
transmitted his Filipino citizenship to
FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate
child of an alien mother. Petitioner
based the allegation of the
illegitimate birth of respondent on
two assertions - first, Allan F. Poe
contracted a prior marriage to a
certain Paulita Gomez before his
marriage to Bessie Kelley and,
second, even if no such prior
marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe,
married Bessie Kelly only a year
after the birth of respondent.
In the hearing before the Third
Division of the COMELEC on 19
January 2004, petitioner, in support
of his claim, presented several
documentary exhibits - 1) a copy of
the certificate of birth of FPJ, 2) a

Who are qualified

repatitriation?

to

avail

of

Persons qualified for repatriation

under RA 8171
To reiterate, the only persons
entitled to repatriation under RA
8171 are the following:
a. Filipino women who lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to
aliens; and
b. Natural-born Filipinos including
their minor children who lost their
Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity.

1.Reference :
a. Subject : Constitutional
Law 1
b. Topic: Natural Born
Citizens
c. Title: MARIA JEANETTE
C. TECSON ,petitioners Vs.
Commission on Elections
d. Citation: G.R. No. 161434.
March 3, 2004

2. Body :

Facts of the case;

On 31 December 2003, respondent
Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known
as Fernando Poe, Jr. (hereinafter
"FPJ"), filed his certificate of
candidacy for the position of
President of the Republic of the
Philippines under the Koalisyon ng
Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party,
in the forthcoming national

conclusively that respondent FPJ is

a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, the evidence on hand
still would be in his favor enough to
hold that he cannot be held guilty of
having made a material
misrepresentation in his certificate
of candidacy in violation of Section
78, in relation to Section 74, of the
Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner
has utterly failed to substantiate his
case before the Court,
notwithstanding the ample
opportunity given to the parties to
present their position and evidence,
and to prove whether or not there
has been material
misrepresentation, which, as so
ruled in Romualdez-Marcos vs.
COMELEC,[48] must not only be
material, but also deliberate and
willful.

Addittional Issues:

Absence of proof presumed

residence of one who died prior to
his death :
- to presume that the place of
residence of a person at the time of
his death were also his residence
before his death

Whether FPJ was a natural born

citizen, so as to be allowed to run
for the office of the President of the
Philippines.

Did he commit material

misrepresentation?

Held :

1.

Yes , FPJ is a natural citizen.

Any conclusion on the
Filipino citizenship of
Lorenzo Pou could only be
drawn from the presumption
that having died in 1954 at
84 years old, Lorenzo would
have been born sometime in
the year 1870, when the
Philippines was under
Spanish rule, and that San
Carlos, Pangasinan, his
place of residence upon his
death in 1954, in the
absence of any other
evidence, could have well
been his place of residence
before death, such that
Lorenzo Pou would have
benefited from the en masse
Filipinization that the
Philippine Bill had effected in
1902. That citizenship (of
Lorenzo Pou), if acquired,
would thereby extend to his
son, Allan F. Poe, father of
respondent FPJ. The 1935
Constitution, during which
regime respondent FPJ has
seen first light, confers
citizenship to all persons
whose fathers are Filipino
citizens regardless of
whether such children are
legitimate or illegitimate.

2. No. But while the totality of the

evidence may not establish

and h) a certification issued by the

City Civil Registrar of San Carlos
City, Pangasinan, stating that the
records of birth in the said office
during the period of from 1900 until
May 1946 were totally destroyed
during World War II.
On 23 January 2004, the
COMELEC dismissed SPA No. 04003 for lack of merit. Three days
later, or on 26 January 2004,
Fornier filed his motion for
reconsideration. The motion was
denied on 06 February 2004 by the
COMELEC en banc. On 10
February 2004, petitioner assailed
the decision of the COMELEC
before this Court conformably with
Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of
the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure. The petition, docketed
G. R. No. 161824, likewise prayed
for a temporary restraining order, a
writ of preliminary injunction or any
other resolution that would stay the
finality and/or execution of the
COMELEC resolutions.
The other petitions, later
consolidated with G. R. No. 161824,
would include G. R. No. 161434,
entitled "Maria Jeanette C. Tecson,
and Felix B. Desiderio, Jr., vs. The
Commission on Elections, Ronald
Allan Kelley Poe (a.k.a. Fernando
Poe, Jr.), and Victorino X. Fornier,"
and the other, docketed G. R. No.
161634, entitled "Zoilo Antonio G.
Velez, vs. Ronald Allan Kelley Poe,
a.k.a. Fernando Poe, Jr.," both
challenging the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC and asserting that,
under Article VII, Section 4,
paragraph 7, of the 1987
Constitution, only the Supreme
Court had original and exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve the basic
issue on the case.

Issue:

Does the 1935 constitution require

that the child has to be legitimate in
order to follow the citizenship of his
father?
No. if the Filipino father is legally
known because the filiation (blood
relation of illegitimate child to the
father) of the child to the Filipino
father is established in accordance
with law, the child follows the
citizenship of the Filipino father.
This gives effect, without
discrimination between legitimate
and illegitimate children, to the
provision of the 1935 Constitution
that [T]hose whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines[if !
supportFootnotes][16][endif]
are Philippine
citizens.

The law has always required that in

all cases of illegitimate children,
their filiation must be duly
proved.The only legally known
parent of an illegitimate child, by
the fact of illegitimacy, is the
mother of the child who conclusively
carries the blood of the mother.
Thus, unless the father
acknowledges the illegitimate child
at birth, the illegitimate child can
only acquire the citizenship of the
only legally known parent - the
mother.
However, if the Filipino father is
legally known because the filiation
(blood relation of illegitimate child to
the father) of the child to the Filipino
father is established in accordance
with law, the child follows the
citizenship of the Filipino father.
This gives effect, without
discrimination between legitimate
and illegitimate children, to the
provision of the 1935 Constitution
that [T]hose whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines are
Philippine citizens.

Does an illegitiatimate child under

the 1935 constitutuin follow the
citizenshipof his father or mother?

A legitimate child of a Filipino father

follows the citizenship of the father.
A child born within wedlock is
presumed to be the son of the
fatherand thus carries the blood of
the father. Under the doctrine of jus
sanguinis, as provided for in Section
1(3), Article III of the 1935
Constitution, a legitimate child, by
the fact of legitimacy,
automatically follows the citizenship
of the Filipino father.
An illegitimate child, however,
enjoys no presumption at birth of
blood relation to any father unless
the father acknowledges the child at
birth.[