Willie Yu v.

Defensor-Santiago,
G.R. L-83882 / 169 SCRA 364 (1989) / January 24, 1989
ARTICLE 4: Citizenship

Facts:
Petitioner's was originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971, valid for five (5) years and
renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular officer.

He was naturalized as a Philippine citizen in 1978.

However, in 1981, petitioner applied for and was issued Portuguese Passport by the Consular
Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese
passport expired on 1986. 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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of applying for a foreign passport and declaration of foreign nationality
in commercial documents, constitute an express renunciation of one’s Philippine citizenship
acquired through naturalization.

Held:
To the mind of the Court, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express
renunciation of petitioner's Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. In Board of
Immigration Commissioners us, Go Gallano, 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 in official 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.

Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or were to be displayed when

required and suppressed when convenient. This then resolves adverse to the petitioner his
motion for clarification and other motions mentioned in the second paragraph, page 3 of this
Decision.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's motion for release from detention is DENIED.
Respondent's motion to lift the temporary restraining order is GRANTED. This Decision is
immediately executory. SO ORDERED.
Willie Yu (Petitioner) is a naturalized Filipino citizen. Petitioner was holder of a Portuguese
passport and despite his naturalization on February 10, 1978 applied for a renewal of his travel
document with the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo and was issued same on July 21, 1981. Albeit,
petitioner has renounced his former allegiance, he continues to revert to the former whenever
convenient i.e. in business dealings and transactions local and overseas. Herein respondent has
detained petitioner for eventual deportation alleging that the latter is not a citizen by virtue of
his acts & evidences adduced. Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking his release
from detention.

Issue

Whether the Bureau of Immigration & Deportation (BID) was justified in detaining petitioner
and processing him for deportation.

Decision

The court a quo, In Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano, enunciated that
express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and
explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner after having renounced Portuguese
citizenship upon naturalization, resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen
by applying for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented himself as such in official
documents even after becoming a naturalized Filipino citizen. Such acts is grossly inconsistent
with his maintenance of Philippine Citizenship.

Philippine Citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or ware to be displayed when

required and suppressed when convenient.

Wherefore, premises considered, petitioner's motion for release from detention is denied. The
decision is immediately executory.
Express renunciation or expatriation
Willie Yu v. Miriam Defensor-Santiago et al.,

G.R. No. L-83882

January 24,1989
Facts:

Petitioner Willie Yu is a Portuguese National who acquired Philippine

citizenship by naturalization on February 10,1978. Despite his naturalization, he
applied for and was issued a renewed Portuguese Passport by the Consular
Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that
his Portuguese passport expired on July 20, 1986. Being a naturalized Filipino,
he signed commercial documents stating his citizenship as Portuguese without
the authentication of an appropriate Philippine consul. He was then detained by
the CID for obtaining a foreign passport while having a Filipino citizenship. Yu
then filed a petition for habeas corpus. An internal resolution of 7 November
1988 referred the case to the Court en Banc. The Court en Banc denied the
petition. He then filed a motion for reconsideration with prayer for restraining
order but it was denied. After denial, he filed a motion for clarification with
prayer for restraining order. On December 7,1988, the temporary Restraining
Order (TRO) was issued. The respondent filed a motion to lift the said TRO,
contending that Yu was in full knowledge and Legal capacity when he applied
for 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. Hence, petitioner then knows the limitations or restrictions
once solemnizing said oath and its succeeding consequences should they be
violated.
Issue:

Was the petitioner’s act constituted a renunciation of his Philippine citizenship?

Ruling:
Yes, considering the facts stated, the court ruled that the Petitioner’s acts
constitute an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship through
naturalization. Express naturalization means renunciation made known
distinctly and explicitly, and not that which is implied. After acquiring
Philippine citizenship, with full knowledge, he resumed his prior status as a
Portuguese citizen by applying for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and
representing himself as a Portuguese in official and commercial documents. The
court found that such acts are grossly inconsistent with the maintenance of his
Philippine citizenship.