FRIVALDO VS.

COMELEC (1996)
G.R. No. 120295, June 28 1996, 257 SCRA 727

FACTS: Juan G. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon again and won. Raul R. Lee
questioned his citizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential
Decree No. 725 and was able to take his oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen.
However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the Court had already ruled based
on his previous attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship, and had
proclaimed Lee, who got the second highest number of votes, as the newly elect
Governor of Sorsogon.
ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldos repatriation was valid.
HELD: The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the
curative nature of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted to the
date of the filing of his application to run for governor. The steps to reacquire
Philippine Citizenship by repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 are: (1)
filing the application; (2) action by the committee; and (3) taking of the oath
of allegiance if the application is approved. It is only upon taking the oath
of allegiance that the applicant is deemed ipso jure to have reacquired Philippine
citizenship. If the decree had intended the oath taking to retroact to the date of the
filing of the application, then it should not have explicitly provided otherwise. He is
therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of Sorsogon.

Frivaldo vs COMELEC [174 SCRA 245]

Facts: Petitioner was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on
January 22, 1988. On October 27, 1988, respondents filed with the COMELEC a
petition for the annulment of petitioners election and proclamation on the ground
that he was a naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine
citizenship on the day of the election on January 18, 1988. He was therefore not
qualified to run for and be elected governor.
Petitioner insisted that he was a citizen of the Philippines because his naturalization
as an American citizen was not impressed with voluntariness. His oath in his COC
that he was a natural-born citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation.
Additionally, his active participation in the 1987 congressional elections had
divested him of American citizenship under the laws of the US, thus restoring his
Philippine citizenship.
The Solicitor General contends that petitioner was not a citizen of the Philippines
and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as an American citizen. As
an alien, he was disqualified for public office in the Philippines. His election did not
cure of this defect because the electorate could not amend the Constitution, the
Local Government Code and the Omnibus Election Code.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was qualified to run for public office.
Held: No. First, petitioners loss of his naturalized American citizenship did not and
could not have the effect of automatic restoration of his Philippine citizenship.
Second, the mere filing of COC wherein petitioner claimed that he is a natural born
Filipino citizen, is not a sufficient act of repatriation.
Third, qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and must be
possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office
but during the officers entire tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost,
his title may be seasonably challenged