CO V. ETHR Facts: 1895 - Ong Te, of Chinese nationality migrated and settled in Laoang, Samar.

. 1915 Ong Te brought his 8-year old Chinese son, Jose Ong Chuan to Samar. 1932 Jose Ong Chuan married Agripina Lao, a natural-born Filipina.
1948 Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. was born.

1957 Jose Ong Chuan, Sr. became a naturalized Filipino under the Phil. Law. 1984-1986 Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar and correspondingly voted there. 1987 Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. run and won in the elections for representative of the 2nd District of Samar. Antonio Co, an opponent of Chuan, filed an election protest on the premise that Chuan is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Issue: W/n Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. is a natural-born Filipino? Ruling: Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. is a natural-born Filipino based on the following premise: 1987 Constitution, Chapter IV Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: 1. XXX 2. XXX 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and 4. XXX Section 2. Natural-born citizens are... Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. The right to suffrage and participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. When Jose Ong Chuan, Jr. participated in such acts, he has elected Phil. Citizenship thereby becoming a natural-born Filipino as provided by Chapter IV of the Constitution.

 In addition any election of Phil. Citizenship by Ong Chuan would not only be superflous but would have also resulted in absurdity considering that it was the law itself that had already elected Phil. Citizenship for him when he was still a minor of 8 years of age by the naturalization of his father. Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for he was then a minor residing in this country.

TECSON V. COMELEC Facts:

Issue:

Ruling:

LABO V. COMELEC Facts: 1976 Labo married an Australian and underwent naturalization where he signed an oath of allegiance and an affirmation of allegiance that renounced all of his allegiance to any other country but Australia. 1980 Labos marriage to his Australian wife was declared void on the ground of the marriage being bigamous.
1988 Labo ran for mayor in the City of Baguio and won.

Lardizabal, an opponent of Labo filed a quo warranto proceeding on the ground that Labo is an Australian citizen. Issue: W/n his act of taking oath and affirming allegiance to the state of Australia only made him a dual national at worst and did not in whatsover divest him of his Filipino citizenship? W/n the annulment and declaration of Labos marriage to his Australian wife as void would cancel his citizenship as an Australian and automatically restore his Philippine Citizenship? Ruling: The following are the modes under CA No.63 by which Philippine citizenship may be lost: 1. Naturalization in a foreign country; 2. Express renounciation of citizenship; and 3. Subscribing an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. All are applicable to Labo. As confirmed by the official statement of the Australian Government through its Consul in the Philippines Labo was still an Australian citizen as of August 12, 1984 by reason of his naturalization and that all candidates for Australian citizenship had to either swear an oath of allegiance or make an

affirmation of allegiance which carries the renunciation of all other allegiance. Both of which were performed by Labo. Even if it be assumed that, as Labo asserts, his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous, that circumstance alone did not automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. His divestiture of Australian citizenship is of no moment to the case at bar. It is a matter between him and his adopted country. What must considered is the fact that he voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the citizenship of a foreign county. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia, as he claims, does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines. Under CA No. 63 as ammended by PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct Act of Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does Labo claim that he has reacquired Philippinen citizenship by any of these methods. Thus, Labo is not a Filipino citizensand therefore he cannot occupy any office of the Philippine government. AZNAR V. COMELEC Facts: 1987 Emilio Lito Osmena files his certificate of candidacy with the COMELEC fo the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the Jan. 1988 local elections. Jan. 1988 Jose B. Aznar, representing PDP Laban filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of Osmena on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino but an American citizen. At the hearing before the COMELEC, Aznar presented the following exhibits: Application for Alien Registration Form No. 1 of the Bureau of Immigration signed by Osmena dated Nov. 21, 1979. Alien Certificate of Registration No. 015356 in the name of Osmena dated Nov. 21, 1979 Osmena maintained that he is a Filipino since his father Dr. Emilio D. Osmena is a Filipino; that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Phil. Passport and that he has been continously residing in the Phils. Since birth and has been a registered voter since 1965. Issue: W/n Osmenas possesion of a Certificate stating that he is an American meant that he is not still a Filipino? Ruling:

The following are the modes under CA No.63 by which Philippine citizenship may be lost: 1. Naturalization in a foreign country; 2. Express renounciation of citizenship; and 3. Subscribing an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. Since Osmena vehemently denies having undergone any of the above proceedings he remains a Filipino by virtue of his being a son of a Filipino father. It was incumbent upon Aznar to prove that Osmena has lost his citizenship. However, Aznar failed to positively establish this fact. In the absence of a clear and convincing proof of such, the court cannot presume the loss of Osmenas Philippine citizenship. He is, as provided by the Constitution, a Filipino citizen.

YU V. SANTIAGO Facts: Yu was naturalized as a Filipino citizen on Feb. 10, 1978. Despite his naturalization, on July 21 1981, Yu applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport by the Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese passport expired July 20, 1986. In April 1980, while still a citizen of the Phils. who had renounced, upon his naturalization, absolutely and forever all sovereignity and fidelity to any foreign prince potentate, state or sovereignity and pledged to maintain true faith and allegiance to the Republic of the Phils., he declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents filed in Hongkong. Issue: W/n Yu, a naturalized Filipino citizen, renounced his citizenship by applying for a Portuguese passport and declaring himself Portuguese in commercial documents he had signed? Ruling:

To the mind of the court, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renounciation of petitioners Phil. citizenship acquired through naturalization. In Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Gallano, express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicityly and not left to interference or implication. Yu, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired 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 Phil. citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance of Phil. citizenship. Phil. citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or were to be displayed when required and supressed when convenient.

ANGAT V. REPUBLIC Facts: Gerardo Angat is a natural-born citizen of the Phil. until he lost his citizenship by naturalization in the US. On March 1996 he filed a petition to regain his status as a citizen of the Phils. under CA No. 63, RA No. 965 and RA No. 2530. The RTC of Marikina granted his petition and ordered him to take his oath and declared him as citizen of the Republic of the Philippines right after. Issue: W/n the the trial court had jurisdiction to order Angat repatriated and declare him as Filipino citizen? Ruling:

A petition for repatriation should be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization and not with the Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction thereover. The committee was reactivated on June 8, 1995 hence, when Angat filed his petition on March 11, 1996, the Special Committee on Naturalization constituted pursuant to LOI No. 270 under PD No. 725 was in place. Administrative Order 285, promulgated on Aug. 22, 1986 relative to RA No. 8171, in effect, was merely the a confirmatory issuance. The RTCs court order of Oct. 4, 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire finality nor could be a source of right on the part of Angat.

REPUBLIC V. DELA ROSA Facts: The case is just an offshoot of the Frivaldo vs. COMELEC case. Once more, the citizenship of Frivaldo is put in issue in these petitions docketed as GR No. 104654, GR No. 105735. The petitions were consolidated since they principally involve the same isuue and parties Issue: The same with Frivaldo case wherein the process as to how he acquired his Filipino citizenship by naturalization was questioned. Ruling:

The Decision of Judge de la Rosa dated Feb. 27, 1992 and the oath of allegiance taken by Frivaldo was declared null and void.

FRIVALDO V. COMELEC Facts: Sept. 20, 1991 Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization under CA No. 63. On October 7, 1991 Judge de la Rosa set the petition hearing on March 16, 1992 and directed the publication of the said order and petition in Official Gazette and a newspapere of general circulation, for three consecutive weeks, the last publication of which should be at least six months before the said date of hearing. The order further required the posting of a copy thereof and the petition in a conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Manila. Frivaldo with the intention of running for public office in the May 1992 elections filed a Motion to Set Hearing Ahead of Schedule, since the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy was March 15, one day before the scheduled hearing.

The motion was granted and on February 21, 1992 the hearing proceeded with Frivaldo as the only witness. However, said order was not published nor a copy thereof posted. Six days later, Judge de la Rosa rendered his Decision and re-admitted Frivaldo as citizen of the Republic of the Philippines by naturalization. Frivaldo was allowed to take his oath of allegiance on the same day before said Judge. Issue: W/n the naturalization of Frivaldo is null and void for failure to comply with the prescribed procedure? Ruling: Frivaldo, having opted to reacquire Phil. citizenship thru naturalization under the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed by the said law. It is not for an applicant to decide for himself and to select the requirements which he believes, even sincerely, are applicable to his case and discard those which he believes are inconvenient or merely of nuisance value. The proceedings conducted, the decision rendered and the oath of allegiance taken therein, are null and void for failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law.

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR, VICENTE D. CHING Facts: Vicente D. Ching was born to the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, on April 11, 1964 in Tubao, La Union. Ching studied Law and passed the bar exams on April 1999 however, he was not allowed to take his oath because of the questionable status of his citizenship. Issue: W/n Ching, a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father can validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age of majority?

Ruling: Ching being a legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constituion was Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elects Philippine citizenship. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) explains the meaning of the phrase upon reaching the age of majority: The clause upon reaching the age of majority has been construed to mean a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority which had been interpreted by the Secretary of Justice to be three (3) years. The span of fourteen (14) years that lapsed from the time Ching reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement of electing upon the reaching the age of majority. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a commodity that can be claimed when needed and supressed when convenient. One who is priveleged to elect Philipine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude. Sadly, in this case Ching slept on his opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship and, as a result, this golden privilege slipped away his grasp. Chings application for admission to the Philippine Bar is DENIED.

VALLES V. COMELEC Facts: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to the spouses Telesfro Ybasco, a Filipino and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. In 1949 Rosalind left Australia and settled in the Philippines. In 1952 she married Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino and since then has continuously participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but a candidate as well. Since then up to the 1998 elections, Rosalinds citizenship has always been questioned and challenged by her opponents.

The following evidence were brought up against her: Rosalind registered herself as an Australian with the Bureau of Immigration and was issued ACR No. 404695 and an ICR dated Sep. 19, 1988. She was issued an Australian passport on March 3, 1988. Issue: W/n Rosalind is a Filipino citizen despite the fact that she was born in Australia? W/n Rosalinds possession of an Australian passport and alien certificate of registration constitute an effective renunciation of Philippine citizenship? Ruling: The signing of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship. Thus, Rosalind is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. In order that citizenship may be lost by renounciation, such renounciation must be express. Thus, the mere fact that Rosalind was a holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an effective renounciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. Such acts were mere assertion of her Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the same. Moreover, under the CA 63, the fact that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another country has not been included as a ground for losing ones Philippine citizenship. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino.

BENGZON III V. HRET Facts: Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Phils. born on Apr. 21, 1960 in Tarlac. On Nov. 5, 1986, Cruz enlisted in the United State Marine Corps and without consent of the Republic of the Philipines, took oath of allegiance to the U.S. thereby losing his Filipino citizenship. He was also naturalized as a U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990 in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.

On March 17, 1984 Cruz reacquired Phil. citizenship through repatriation. He then ran and won as Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan. Bengzon, one of Cruzs opponent, filed a Quo Warranto Case Ad Cautelam against Cruz claiming that Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of Representative since he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Art. VI, Sec. 6 of the Constitution. Issue: W/n Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship? Ruling: As defined in the Constitution, natural-born citizens are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. Before Cruz was naturalized as an American he was originally a natural-born Filipino as defined by the Constitution. Repatriation, as defined in the treatise Private International Law, is the recovery of the original nationality upon fulfillment of certain conditions. Webster buttresses this definition by describing the ordinary or common usage of repatriate, as to restore or return to ones country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship. To reacquire simply means to to get back as ones own again. Since Cruz, prior to his becoming a US citizen, was a natural-born Filipino citizen, he reacquired the same status upon repatriation. Cruz reacquired his status as a natural-born Filipino.

REPUBLIC V. LIM Facts:

Chule Y. Lim was born to Yu Dio To (Co Tian), a Chinese and Placida Anto, a Filipina.

Lims father and mother never got married.

 Lim seeks to change her nationality as in indicated to in her birth certificate from Chinese to Filipino on account that she was an illigitimate child. Issue: W/n the CA erred in ordering the correction of the citizenship of respondent Chule Y. Lim from Chinese to Filipino despite the fact respondent never demonstrated any compliance with the legal requirements for election of citizenship? Ruling: Since Lim was born in 1954 she falls under the jurisdiction of the 1935 Constitution. As provided in Art. IV, Sect 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, citizenship of a legitmate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citzienship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Phil. citizenship. Sec. 1 of Commenwealth Act No. 625 also provides that legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect Phil. citizenship by expressing such intention in a statement to be signed and sworn to oath and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of Lim who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married. As such she was not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen. By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth. Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. This notwithstanding, the records show that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positve act of election of Phil. citizenship.

CO V. CIVIL REGISTER OF MANILA Facts:

Hubert Tan Co was born on March 23, 1974. His sister, Arlene Tan Co, was born on May 19, 1975. In their respective certificates of birth, it is stated that their parents Co Boon Peng and Lourdes Vihong K. Tan are Chinese citizens. On Feb 15, 1977 Co Boon Peng became a naturalized Filipino under the Special Committee on Naturalization under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 270. In 1998 the Co siblings then filed a petition for correction of entries in their certificates of birth requesting that their citizenship status and that of their fathers be changed to Filipino on the following grounds:
1. that upon granting of Phil. Citizenship by naturalization to Co Boon Peng in 1977, the petitioners who were born in the Phil. and still minors at that time became Filipino citizens through the derivative mode of naturalization as provided by the Sec. 15 of CA No. 473, as ammended by CA Act No. 535 which provides: Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Phils. shall be considered citizens thereof;

2. the naturalization of petitioners father in 1977 was an act or event affecting and concerning their civil status that must be recorded in the Civil Register, Article 407 of the New Civil Code of the Phils. which provides: Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status f persons shall be recorded in the Civil Register.

Issue: W/n the Co sibling should be awarded Phil. citizenship as provided in CA Act. No. 535 when their father, Co Boon Peng acquired his Phil. citizenship through a different law, LOI No. 270? Ruling: LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are laws governing the naturalization of qualified aliens residing in the Phils. while they provide for different procedures, CA No. 473 governs naturalization by judcial decree while LOI No.270 governs naturalization by presidential decree; both statutes have the same purpose and objective: to enable aliens permanently residing in the Phils., who, having demonstrated and developed love for and loyalty to the Philippines, as well as affinity to the culture, tradition and ideals of the Filipino people, and contributed to the economic, social and cultural development of our country, to be integrated into the national fabric by being granted Filipino citizenship. Clearly, LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are, as the Co siblings correctly possit, statutes in pari materia. Absent any express repeal of Sec. 15 of CA No. 473 in LOI No. 270, the said provision should be read into the latter as an integral part thereof, not being inconsistent with its purpose. Thus, Sec. 15 of CA No. 473 which extends the grant of Phil. citizenship to the minor children of those naturalized thereunder,

should similarly applied to the minor children of those naturalized under LOI No. 270, like the petitioners in this case. ALTAREJOS V COMELEC Facts: Altarejos was a candidate for mayor in the Municipality of San Jacinto in the May 10, 2004 election. Respondents Altiche and Versoza, both registered voters, filed petition to disqualify Altarejos on the basis that he is a U.S. citizen as evidenced by the ACR and ICR issued to him on Nov. 3, 1997 by the Bureau of Immigration. Alterejos in his defense claimed that as early as Dec. 17, 1997, he was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization. Thus, his Filipino citizenship was already restored. However, Alterejos failed to register his repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration. Issue: Is the registration of Alterejos repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation? Ruling: The provision of law applicable in this case is Sec, 2 of RA No. 8171, which provides: Sec. 2 Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Phils. and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent alien certificate of registraionand issue the certificate of identifaction as Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen. The law is clear that repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Phils. and registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of Immigration. Hence, in addition to taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Phils., the registration of the Certificate of Repatriation in the proper civil registry and the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting the repatriation of a citizen. Failure to comply with the prerequisit will render his repatriation null and void.

TABASA V CA Facts:

Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born citizen of the Phils. At the age of 7, Joevanies father became a naturalized citizen of US By derivative naturalization Joevanie Tabasa also acquired US citizenship In 1995, Tabasa went back to the Phils. as a balikbayan for one year. Thereafter, he was arrested and detained by agent Wilson Soluren of the BID Further investigation by BID showed that Tabasas American passport was revoked due to several outstanding federal cases filed against him. BID ordered the deportation of Tabasa Tabasa seeks refuge from departation under RA 8171.

Issue:

W/n Tabasa has validly reacquired Phil. citizenship under RA 8171? If there is no valid repatriation, then he can be summarily deported for his being an undocumented alien. Ruling: Tabasa has not validly reacquired Filipino citizenship. Persons qualified for repatriation under RA 8171: a) Filipino woment who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Phil. citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. The privelege of repatriation is therefore available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. When Tabasa applied for repatriation he was already 35 years of age--clearly not a minor. Neither can he be a natural-born Filipino who left the country due to political or economic necessity. Clearly, he lost his Phil. citizenship by operation of law and not due to political or economic exigencies. It was his father who could have been

motivated by economic or political reasons in deciding to apply for naturalization. The decision was his parents and not his.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CITIZENSHIP

CASE DIGESTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. CO V. HRET TECSON V. COMELEC LABO V. COMELEC AZNAR V. COMELEC YU V. SANTIAGO REPUBLIC V. DE LA ROSA FRIVALDO V. COMELEC ANGAT V. REPUBLIC RE: APPLICATION VALLES V. COMELEC BENGZON V. HRET REPUBLIC V. LIM ALTERAJOS V. COMELEC CO V. CIVIL REGISTRAR

15.

TABASA V. CA

CLAIRE MARIE B. MAURO I - VIADA