CARABALLO VS REPUBLIC

4 SCRA 1055 (1962)

Facts:
Ricardo Caraballo, an American citizen enlisted in the US Air Force as staff
sergeant and detailed in Clark Air Base, lived in Angeles, Pampanga together with his
wife, Graciela. He alleged that he and his wife had no legitimate acknowledged natural
children, natural children by legal fiction or any other descendant, and so he and his wife
desired to adopt as their child, Norma Lee Caber, a 5-day old natural daughter of one
Mercedes Caber begotten by an unknown father. Caraballo filed a petition for adoption of
the child but it was dismissed by the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga on the ground that
the petitioner, being a non-resident alien, was not qualified to adopt under Art. 335 of the
Civil Code.

Issue:
Whether or not Caraballo, a non-resident alien is qualified to adopt a child in the
Philippines

Ruling:
Ricardo Caraballo, the petitioner, an American citizen who now lives in Clark Air
Field in Angeles, Pampanga, Philippines, because of assignment in the US Air Force as
staff sergeant, his stay here in the Philippines then being temporary, is non-resident of
the alien who, pursuant Article 335 of the Civil Code, is disqualified to adopt a child in the
Philippines. It cannot be gainsaid that an adopted minor may be removed from the country
by the adopter, who is not a resident of the Philippines, and placed beyond the reach and
protection of the country of his birth.

DE LA VINA V. VILLAREAL AND GEOPANO

41 PHIL. 13 (1920)
Facts:
In 1917, Narcisa Geopano filed a complaint in the CFI of Iloilo against Diego de la
Viña, alleging: That she was a resident of Iloilo, and that the defendant was a resident of
Oriental Negros; that she was the legitimate wife of the defendant, having been married
to him in Negros Oriental, in the year 1888; that since the year 1913 and up to the date
of the complaint, the defendant had been committing acts of adultery with one Ana Calog,
sustaining illicit relations with her and having her as his concubine, with public scandal
and in disgrace of the plaintiff; that because of said illicit relations, the defendant ejected
the plaintiff from the conjugal home, for which reason she had established her habitual
residence. Upon said allegations she prayed for a decree of divorce.
The petitioner contends that the CFI of Iloilo had no jurisdiction because the
defendant therein was a resident of Negros Oriental and the plaintiff, as the wife of the
defendant, must also be considered a resident of the same province inasmuch as, under
the law, the domicile of the husband is also the domicile of the wife.

Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner is tenable
Ruling:
 No. The Court ruled that the general principle of law, that the domicile of the wife
follows that of the husband. But in modern laws, it is clear that many exceptions to the
said rule can be obtained. The wife may acquire another and separate domicile from that
of her husband where the theoretical unity of husband and wife is dissolved, as it is by
institution of divorce proceedings; or where the husband has given cause for divorce; or
where there is a separation of parties by agreement, or a permanent separation due to
the desertion of the wife by the husband or attributable to a cruel treatment on the part of
the husband; or where there has been a forfeiture by the wife of the benefit of the
husband’s domicile. The case of Narcisa Geopano comes under one of the many
exceptions abovementioned. Therefore, a married woman may acquire another and
separate domicile from that of her husband, during the existence of the marriage, where
the husband has given cause for divorce.

ROMUALDEZ- MARCOS VS COMELEC

248 SCRA 300
FACTS
Imelda Romualdez- Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of Leyte. Private Respondent Montejo, also a candidate for the same
position, filed a petition for disqualification of the petitioner with COMELEC on the ground
that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. Petitioner then
filed an amended certificate of candidacy, changing the entry in item 8 from 7 months to
since childhood. However, the amended certificate was not received since it was already
past deadline. She claimed that she always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile
and residence.

ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result
of her marriage

RULING Tacloban became petitioner’s domicile origin by operation of law when her father
brought the family to Leyte. Domicile is lost only when there is actual removal or change
of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a
new one. When she married, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new
home not a domicilium necessarium.

FRIVALDO v. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 87193 June 23, 1989

FACTS:
Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the province of Sorsogon and
assumed office in due time. The League of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a
petition for the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen,
having been naturalized in the United States. Frivaldo admitted the allegations but
pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he was naturalized as American citizen
only to protect himself against President Marcos during the Martial Law era.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Frivaldo is a Filipino citizen.

RULING:
No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must
be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable
requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.

He claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of valid repatriation. He

claims that by actively participating in the local elections, he automatically forfeited
American citizenship under the laws of the United States of America. The Court stated
that that the alleged forfeiture was between him and the US. If he really wanted to drop
his American citizenship, he could do so in accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by
CA No. 473 and PD 725. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.

LABO v. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 86564 August 1, 1989
Facts:
Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of Baguio City was questioned on his
citizenship. He was married in the Philippines to an Australian citizen. The marriage was
declared void in the Australian Federal Court in Sydney on the ground that the marriage
had been bigamous. According to Australian records, Labo is still an Australian citizen.

Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the Philippines.

Held:
The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to an Australian national in 1976 did
not automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or
finding that he automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He became
a citizen of Australia because he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive
process, simplified in his case because he was married to an Australian citizen. As a
condition for such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of Allegiance and/or made the
Affirmation of Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does not appear in the record,
nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship.