52. Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004| Vitug, J. Philippine citizenship.

Philippine citizenship." Herein, the date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be
20 August 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through its history, four
FACTS: modes of acquiring citizenship - naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis
– had been in vogue. Only two, i.e., jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person
On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr.
to being a “natural-born” citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of
(FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of
Customs (1912), did not last long. With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the
the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the 2004
reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood
national elections.
relationship would now become the primary basis of citizenship by birth.
In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of
Considering the reservations made by the parties on the veracity of some of the entries
the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date
on the birth certificate of FPJ and the marriage certificate of his parents, the only
of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Victorino X. Fornier,
conclusions that could be drawn with some degree of certainty from the documents
(GR 161824) initiated, on 9 January 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003) before the
would be that (1) The parents of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley; (2) FPJ was
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to
born to them on 20 August 1939; (3) Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to
cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material
each other on 16 September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo Poe;
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino
and (5) At the time of his death on 11 September 1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old.
citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother,
The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of FPJ,
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national,
and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou are documents of public record in the custody
being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. Granting, Fornier asseverated, that
of a public officer.
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. The documents have been submitted in evidence by both contending parties during the
proceedings before the COMELEC. But while the totality of the evidence may not
Fornier based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on two assertions: (1) Allan
establish conclusively that FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence
F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to
on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held
Bessie Kelley and, (2) even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, married
guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in
Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of FPJ. On 23 January 2004, the COMELEC
violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. Fornier
dismissed SPA 04-003 for lack of merit. 3 days later, or on 26 January 2004, Fornier
has utterly failed to substantiate his case before the Court, notwithstanding the ample
filed his motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied on 6 February 2004 by the
opportunity given to the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove
COMELEC en banc. On 10 February 2004, Fornier assailed the decision of the
whether or not there has been material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in
COMELEC before the Supreme Court conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65,
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, must not only be material, but also deliberate and
of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition likewise prayed for a temporary
willful. The petitions were dismissed.
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 GR 161824, would include GR 161434 and GR 161634, 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: Whether FPJ was a natural born citizen, so as to be allowed to run for the office
of the President of the Philippines.

HELD: Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses that "No person may
be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and
a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election."

The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include "those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
53. In re Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999
FACTS:
1. Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese
father, was born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under the 1935 Constitution.
He has resided in the Philippines
2. He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998, filed an
application to take the 1998 Bar Examination.
3. The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed to take the bar if he submit to the
Court the following documents as proof of his Philippine Citizenship:
4. Certification issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching is a certified
accountant;
5. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a
registered voter of his place; and
6. Certification showing that Ching was elected as member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Tubao, La Union
7. On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath taking ceremony
was scheduled on May 5, 1999.
8. Because of his questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was not allowed to
take oath.
9. He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship.
10. The Office of the Solicitor General was required to file a comment on Ching's
petition for admission to the Philippine Bar.
11. In his report:
1. Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and continue to be
so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship,
under the compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265 "an
act providing for the manner in which the option to elect Philippine citizenship
shall be declared by a person whose mother is a Filipino citizen"
2. He pointed out the Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship, and
if ever he does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by
the present jurisprudence.
ISSUE: Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a reasonable time".
HELD:
1. No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to elect Philippine citizenship
within a reasonable time. The reasonable time means that the election should be made
within 3 years from "upon reaching the age of majority", which is 21 years old. Instead,
he elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority which the
court considered not within the reasonable time. Ching offered no reason why he
delayed his election of Philippine citizenship, as procedure in electing Philippine
citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required is an affidavit
of election of Philippine citizenship and file the same with the nearest civil registry.
54. Co vs HRET, 199 SCRA 692 (1991)| Guiterrez, J.
FACTS:
This case arose when the petitioner, Antonio Y, Co filed an election protest on the
grounds that Jose Ong, Jr is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and not a
resident of second district of Northern Samar. Prior to this, the Electoral Tribunal of the
House of Representatives declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born
Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes. 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
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.
ISSUE: Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is a citizen of the Philippines.
HELD: Yes. In the year 1895, the respondent’s grandfather, Ong
Te, arrived in the Philippines from China and established his residence in the
municipality of Laoang, Samar. The father of the respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was
born in China in 1905 but was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915, he filed
with the court an application for naturalization and was declared a Filipino citizen. In
1984, the private respondent married a Filipina named Desiree Lim. For the elections
of 1984 and1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and
voted there during those elections.
Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino
mothers with an alien father were placed on equal footing. They were both considered
as natural born citizens. Besides, respondent did more than merely exercise his right
of suffrage. He has established his life here in the Philippines. On the issue of
residence, it is not required that a person should have a house in order to establish his
residence and domicile. It is enough that he should live in the municipality or in a rented
house or in that of friend or relative. To require him to own property in order to be
eligible to run for Congress would be the same as to a property qualification. The
Constitution only requires that the candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and
residence requirements.
55. Bengzon v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001| Kapunan, J.
FACTS:
The citizenship of respondent Teodoro C. Cruz is at issue in this case, in view of the
constitutional requirement that "no person shall be a Member of the House of
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen. “Respondent Cruz was a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960,
of Filipino parents. The fundamental law then applicable was the 1935Constitution.On
November 5, 1985, however, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine
Corps and, without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of
allegiance to the United States. As a consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for
under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section1 (4), a Filipino citizen may lose his
citizenship by, among others, "rendering service to or accepting commission in the
armed forces of a foreign country. “On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired
his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630.
He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan
in the May 11, 1998 elections. Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto
AdCautelam with respondent House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of
Representatives since he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article VI,
Section 6 of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an
American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition
of Philippine citizenship.
HELD: YES. 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. 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. As respondent Cruz was not required by law
to go through naturalization proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is
perforce a natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary qualifications
to be elected as member of the House of Representatives. The petition is hereby
DISMISSED.
56. Coquilla v. Comelec, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002| Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the resolution, dated July 19, 2001, of the
Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), ordering the
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of petitioner Teodulo M. Coquilla for the
position of mayor of Oras, Eastern Samar in the May 14, 2001 elections and the order,
dated January 30, 2002, of the COMELEC en banc denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner Coquilla was born on February 17, 1938 of Filipino parents
in Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and resided there until 1965, when he joined the
United States Navy. He was subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen.
From 1970 to 1973, petitioner thrice visited the Philippines while on leave from the U.S.
Navy.
Otherwise, even after his retirement from the U.S. Navy in 1985, he remained in the
United States. On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.
Petitioner was issued Certificate of Repatriation No. 000737 on November 10, 2000
and Bureau of Immigration Identification Certificate No. 115123 on November 13,
2000.On November 21, 2000, petitioner applied for registration as a voter of Butnga,
Oras, Eastern Samar. His application was approved by the Election Registration Board
on January 12, 2001.
On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy stating therein that he had
been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for "two (2) years."
ISSUE: Whether or not Coquilla had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar at least
on year before the elections held on May 14, 2001 as what he represented in his COC.
HELD: No. The statement in petitioner’s certificate of candidacy that he had been a
resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for “two years” at the time he filed such certificate is
not true. The question is whether the COMELEC was justified in ordering the
cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for this reason. Petitioner made a false
representation of a material fact in his certificate of candidacy, thus rendering such
certificate liable to cancellation. In the case at bar, what is involved is a false statement
concerning a candidate’s qualification for an office for which he filed the certificate of
candidacy. This is a misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the cancellation of
petitioner’s certificate of candidacy. The cancellation of petitioner’s certificate of
candidacy in this case is thus fully justified.
57. Yu vs Santiago, 169 SCRA 364 (1989)| Padilla, J. Further Reference:

FACTS: How Philippine Citizenship obtained/reacquired:

1. Petitioner- a Portuguese National acquired a Philippine citizenship by 1. 1.)By direct act of Congress
naturalization on Feb. 10, 1978. 2. 2.) By naturalization- take the oath of allegiance to the Republic Act 9225
2. Despite naturalization on 21 July 1981, petitioner applied for and was issued a 3. 3.)By administrative repatriation—take the oath of Allegiance to the Republic
renewed Portuguese Passport No. 35/81 serial N. 1517410 by the Consular and register the same in the local civil registry or in the place where the person
Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that resides/last resided; original citizenship is acquired
his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986.
3. Petitioner though a naturalized Filipino signed commercial documents stating his
citizenship as Portuguese without the authentication of an appropriate Philippine
Consul
4. Petitioner was detained by the CID for obtaining a Foreign passport while (at the
same time) holding a Filipino citizenship as well
5. Respondents argue that the petitioner was in full knowledge and legal capacity
when he applied for A Philippine citizenship through naturalization he consequently
recognizes, identifies and agrees to the oath taken which states to renounce
absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate,
state or sovereignty” and pledged to “maintain true faith and allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines,".
6. Hence, petitioner then knows the limitations or restrictions once solemnizing said
oath and it succeeding consequences should they be violated

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Mr. Willie Yu’s acts constitute a renunciation of his
Philippine Citizenship? YES

HELD:

SC RULING: Petitioner’s motion for release from detention is DENIED (along with other
motions filed).

COURT HELD: Express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made
known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with
full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon
naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a
Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented
himself as such inofficial documents even after he had become a naturalized Philippine
citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly
inconsistent with his maintenance of Philippine citizenship. While still a citizen of the
Philippines who had renounced, upon his naturalization, "absolutely and forever all
allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty" and
pledged to "maintain true faith and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines," he
declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed,
specifically, the Companies registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd. filed in Hongkong sometime
in April 1980.