TITLE: TECSON VS. COMELEC CITATION: G.R. NO. 161434 DATE: MARCH 7, 2004 FACTS: Victorino X.

Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FP and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FP !ade a !aterial !isrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by clai!in" to be a natural#born Filipino citi$en %hen in truth, accordin" to Fornier, his parents %ere forei"ners& his !other, 'essie (elley Poe, %as an )!erican, and his father, )llan Poe, %as a Spanish national, bein" the son of Loren$o Pou, a Spanish sub*ect. +rantin", petitioner asse,erated, that )llan F. Poe %as a Filipino citi$en, he could not ha,e trans!itted his Filipino citi$enship to FP , the latter bein" an ille"iti!ate child of an alien !other. Petitioner based the alle"ation of the ille"iti!ate birth of respondent on t%o assertions # first, )llan F. Poe contracted a prior !arria"e to a certain Paulita +o!e$ before his !arria"e to 'essie (elley and, second, e,en if no such prior !arria"e had e-isted, )llan F. Poe, !arried 'essie (elly only a year after the birth of respondent. ISSUES: .hether or not FP is considered a natural born citi$en/ 0n the absence of contrary proof, %hat is the presu!ed residence of the one %ho died prior to his death/ 1oes an ille"iti!ate child under the 2345 Constitution follo% the citi$enship of the !other or father/ 1oes the 2345 Constitution require that the child has to be le"iti!ate in order to follo% the citi$enship of his father/

THE COURTS RULING: 6he death certificate of Loren$o Pou %ould indicate that he died on 22 Septe!ber 2357, at the a"e of 87 years old, in San Carlos, Pan"asinan. 0t could thus be assu!ed that Loren$o Pou %as born so!eti!e in the year 289: %hen the Philippines %as still a colony of Spain. Petitioner ar"ued that Loren$o Pou %as not in the Philippines durin" the crucial period of fro! 2838 to 23:; considerin" that there %as no e-istin" record about such fact in the

<ecords Mana"e!ent and )rchi,es Office. Petitioner, ho%e,er, li=e%ise failed to sho% that Loren$o Pou %as at any other place durin" the sa!e period.

0n his death certificate, the residence of Loren$o Pou %as stated to be San Carlos, Pan"asinan. 0n the absence of any e,idence to the contrary, the Court presu!ed that the residence of the person at the ti!e of his death %as also his residence before death. 0n fact, it %ould be e-tre!ely doubtful if the <ecords Mana"e!ent and )rchi,es Office had co!plete records of all residents of the Philippines fro! 2838 to 23:;. 6hus, the Supre!e Court concluded that if Loren$o Pou is assu!ed to be in the Philippines in 22 )pril 2832, bein" a Spanish sub*ect %ho continued to reside in the Philippines %ithout preser,in" his alle"iance to the Cro%n of Spain, then he %as con,erted to a Filipino citi$en in accordance %ith the Philippine 'ill of 23:;. Loren$o Pou no% bein" a Filipino, )llan Poe is also a Filipino upon birth and Fernando Poe r. is li=e%ise held to be a natural#born Filipino in accordance %ith the 2345 Constitution. 0n the absence of any e,idence to the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presu!e, that the place of residence of a person at the ti!e of his death %as also his residence before death. >nder the 2345 Constitution, if the child?s father is a citi$en of the Philippines, he shall be declared as a citi$en of the Philippines. 'ut ille"iti!ate children of Filipino !others are required to still elect Filipino citi$enship upon reachin" the a"e of !a*ority.

TITLE: MO YA LIM YAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION CITATION: 41 SCRA 292 DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1971 FACTS: On 8 February 23@2, Lau Auen Aeun" applied for a passport ,isa to enter the Philippines as a non#i!!i"rant. 0n the interro"ation !ade in connection %ith her application for a te!porary ,isitorBs ,isa to enter the Philippines, she stated that she %as a Chinese residin" at (o%loon, Con"=on", and that she desired to ta=e a pleasure trip to the Philippines to ,isit her "reat "randuncle Lau Chin" Pin" for a period of one !onth. She %as per!itted to co!e into the Philippines on 24 March 23@2, and %as per!itted to stay for a period of one !onth %hich %ould e-pire on 24 )pril 23@2. On the date of her arri,al, )sher A, Chen" filed a bond in the a!ount of P2,:::.:: to underta=e, a!on" others, that said Lau Auen Aeun" %ould actually depart fro! the Philippines on or before the e-piration of her authori$ed period of stay in this country or %ithin the period as in his discretion the Co!!issioner of 0!!i"ration or his authori$ed representati,e !i"ht properly allo%. )fter repeated e-tensions, Lau Auen Aeun" %as allo%ed to stay in the Philippines up to 24 February 23@;. On ;5 anuary 23@;, she contracted !arria"e %ith Moy Aa Li! Aao alias Edilberto )"uinaldo Li! an alle"ed Filipino citi$en. 'ecause of the conte!plated action of the Co!!issioner of 0!!i"ration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and i!!ediate deportation, after the e-piration of her authori$ed stay, she brou"ht an action for in*unction %ith preli!inary in*unction. )t the hearin" %hich too= place one and a half years after her arri,al, it %as ad!itted that Lau Auen Aeun" could not %rite either En"lish or 6a"alo". E-cept for a fe% %ords, she could not spea= either En"lish or 6a"alo". She could not na!e any Filipino nei"hbor, %ith a Filipino na!e e-cept one, <osa. She did not =no% the na!es of her brothers#in#la%, or sisters#in#la%. 6he Court of First 0nstance of Manila DCi,il Case739:5E denied the prayer for preli!inary in*unction. Mo ya Li! Aao and Lau Auen Aeun" appealed.

ISSUE:

.hat is the effect of !arria"e of an alien %o!an to a Filipino Dbefore the 2389 ConstitutionE/

THE COURTS RULING: 6he Court e-pressly "a,e the parties concerned opportunity to pro,e the fact that they %ere not sufferin" fro! any of the disqualifications of the la% %ithout the need of under"oin" any *udicial naturali$ation proceedin". 0t !ay be stated, therefore, that accordin" to the abo,e decisions, the la% in this country, on the !atter of the e e!" # $%&&'%(e # %) %*'e) +#$%) "# % F'*',')# '- ".%" -.e ".e&e/0 /e!#$e- % F'*',')% , if it can be pro,en that at the ti!e of such !arria"e, she does not possess any of the disqualifications enu!erated in Section 7 of the Faturali$ation La%, %ithout the need of sub!ittin" to any naturali$ation proceedin"s under said la%. 0t is to be ad!itted that both of the abo,e decisions !ade no reference to qualifications, that is, as to %hether or not they need also to be pro,ed, but, in any e,ent, it is a fact that the Secretary of ustice understood the! to !ean that such qualifications need not be possessed nor pro,en. 6hen Secretary of ustice esus 'arrera, %ho later beca!e a distin"uished !e!ber of this Court, @ so ruled in opinions rendered by hi! subsequent to Ly +io= Ca, the !ost illustrati,e of %hich heldG . )t the outset it is i!portant to note that an alien %o!an !arried to a Filipino citi$en needs only to sho% that she H!i"ht herself be la%fully naturali$edH in order to acquire Philippine citi$enship. Co!pliance %ith other conditions of the statute, such as those relatin" to the qualifications of an applicant for naturali$ation throu"h *udicial proceedin"s, is not necessary. DSeeG Leonard ,. +rant, 5 Fed. 22& ;9 Ops. )tty. +en I>.S.J 5:9& Ops. Sec. of ustice, Fo. 99@, s. 237:, and Fo. 222, s. 2354. 6his ,ie% finds support in the case of Ly +io= Ca et al. ,. +alan" et al., +.<. Fo. L#2:9@:, pro!ul"ated May 29, 2359, %here the Supre!e Court, construin" the abo,equoted section of the Faturali$ation La%, held that H!arria"e to a !ale Filipino does not ,est Philippine citi$enship to his forei"n %ife,H unless she Hherself !ay be la%fully naturali$ed,H and that Hthis

li!itation of Section 25 e-cludes, fro! the benefits of naturali$ation by !arria"e, those disqualified fro! bein" naturali$ed as citi$ens of the Philippines under Section 7 of said Co!!on%ealth )ct Fo. 794.H 0n other %ords, disqualification for any of the causes enu!erated in Section 7 of the )ct is the decisi,e factor that defeats the ri"ht of the forei"n %ife of a Philippine citi$en to acquire Philippine citi$enship.

TITLE: IN RE: MALLARE (P. 40 BAR Q) RELATE TO TECSON CITATION: 19 SCRA 41 A.M. NO. 133 DATE: SE2TEMBER 12, 1974 FACTS: 6he facts and circu!stances obtainin" therein are ,ery different fro! those in the present case, thus, ne"atin" its applicability. First, Esteban Mallare %as born before the effecti,ity of the 2345 Constitution and the enact!ent of C.). Fo. @;5. Cence, the require!ents and procedures prescribed under the 2345 Constitution and C.). Fo. @;5 for electin" Philippine citi$enship %ould not be applicable to hi!. Second, the rulin" in Mallare %as an obiter since, as correctly pointed out by the OS+, it %as not necessary for Esteban Mallare to elect Philippine citi$enship because he %as already a Filipino, he bein" a natural child of a Filipino !other. 0n this re"ard, the Court statedG Esteban Mallare, natural child of )na Mallare, a Filipina, is therefore hi!self a Filipino, and no other act %ould be necessary to confer on hi! all the ri"hts and pri,ile"es attached to Philippine citi$enship D>.S. ,s. On" 6ianse, ;3 Phil. 44;& Santos Co ,s. +o,ern!ent of the Philippine 0slands, 7; Phil. 574, Serra ,s. <epublic, L#7;;4, May 2;, 235;, Sy Kui!suan ,s. <epublic, L#7@34, Feb. 2@, 2354& Pitallano ,s. <epublic, L#5222, une ;8, 2357E. Feither could any act be ta=en on the erroneous belief that he is a non#filipino di,est hi! of the citi$enship pri,ile"es to %hich he is ri"htfully entitled. 29

ISSUE: .hether or not Florencio Mallare can e-ercise of the ri"ht of suffra"e/

.ill an ille"iti!ate child of an alien father and Filipino !other under the 2345 Constitution need to elect citi$enship to be considered a natural born/

THE COURTS RULING: 6he rulin" in Mallare %as reiterated and further elaborated in Co ,s. Electoral 6ribunal of the Couse of <epresentati,es, 28 %here %e heldG .e ha,e *urisprudence that defines HelectionH as both a for!al and an infor!al process. 0n the case of 0n reG Florencio Mallare D53 SC<) 75 I2397JE, the Court held that the e-ercise of the ri"ht of suffra"e and the participation in election e-ercises constitute a positi,e act of election of Philippine citi$enship. 0n the e-act pronounce!ent of the Court, %e heldG

EstebanBs e-ercise of the ri"ht of suffra"e %hen he ca!e of a"e constitutes a positi,e act of Philippine citi$enship. LSection 2, )rticle 000, 2345 Constitution. Philippines # LD2E 6hose %ho are citi$ens of the Philippine 0slands at the ti!e of the 6he follo%in" are citi$ens of the

adoption of this Constitution LD;E 6hose born in the Philippines 0slands of forei"n parents %ho, before the

adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine 0slands. LD4E 6hose %hose fathers are citi$ens of the Philippines. LD7E 6hose %hose !others are citi$ens of the Philippines and upon reachin"

the a"e of !a*ority, elect Philippine citi$enship. LD5E 6hose %ho are naturali$ed in accordance %ith la%.M

Subsection D7E, )rticle 000, of the 2345 Constitution, ta=en to"ether %ith e-istin" ci,il la% pro,isions at the ti!e, %hich pro,ided that %o!en %ould auto!atically lose their Filipino citi$enship and acquire that of their forei"n husbands, resulted in discri!inatory situations that effecti,ely incapacitated the %o!en fro! trans!ittin" their Filipino citi$enship to their le"iti!ate

children and required ille"iti!ate children of Filipino !others to still elect Filipino citi$enship upon reachin" the a"e of !a*ority.

TITLE: AZNAR VS. COMELEC AND OSMEA CITATION: 131 SCRA 1990 DATE: MA4 21, 1990 FACTS: On Fo,e!ber 23, 2389, pri,ate respondent E!ilio HLitoH Os!eNa filed his certificate of candidacy %ith the COMELEC for the position of Pro,incial +o,ernor of Cebu Pro,ince in the anuary 28, 2388 local elections.;E On anuary ;;, 2388, petitioner ose '. )$nar in his capacity as its incu!bent Pro,incial Chair!an filed %ith the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of pri,ate respondent on the "round that he is alle"edly not a Filipino citi$en, bein" a citi$en of the >nited States of )!erica.4 On anuary ;9, 2388, petitioner filed a For!al Manifestation sub!ittin" a Certificate issued by the then 0!!i"ration and 1eportation Co!!issioner Miria! 1efensor Santia"o certifyin" that pri,ate respondent is an )!erican and is a holder of )lien Certificate of <e"istration D)C<E Fo. '#;2778 and 0!!i"rant Certificate of <esidence D0C<E Fo. 244322, issued at Manila on March ;9 and ;8, 2358, respecti,ely.

1urin" the hearin" at the COMELEC Pri,ate respondent, !aintained that he is a Filipino citi$en, alle"in"G that he is the le"iti!ate child of 1r. E!ilio 1. Os!eNa, a Filipino and son of the late President Ser"io Os!eNa, Sr.& that he is a holder of a ,alid and subsistin" Philippine Passport Fo. :8552:4 issued on March ;5, 2389& that he has been continuously residin" in the Philippines since birth and has not "one out of the country for !ore than si- !onths& and that he has been a re"istered ,oter in the Philippines since 23 @5.5E 6hereafter, on une 22, 2388, COMELEC DFirst 1i,isionE dis!issed the petition for disqualification for not ha,in" been ti!ely filed and for lac= of sufficient proof that pri,ate respondent is not a Filipino citi$en. Cence, the petition for Certiorari. ISSUES: .hether or not respondent Os!ena is no lon"er a Filipino citi$en by acquirin" dual#citi$enship/ .hat is the status of one %ho is holder of alien certificate of re"istration %hile at the sa!e ti!e ha,in" a ,alid Philippine passport/ 0s he considered a Filipino/

THE COURTS RULING: Supre!e Court dis!issed petition for certiorari upholdin"

COMELEC?s decision. 6he petitioner failed to present direct proof that pri,ate respondent had lost his Filipino citi$enship by any of the !odes pro,ided for under C.). Fo. @4. these areG D2E by naturali$ation in a forei"n country& D;E by e-press renunciation of citi$enship& and D4E by subscribin" to an oath of alle"iance to support the Constitution or la%s of a forei"n country. Fro! the e,idence, it is clear that pri,ate respondent Os!eNa did not lose his Philippine citi$enship by any of the three !entioned hereinabo,e or by any other !ode of losin" Philippine citi$enship. 0n the instant case, pri,ate resp ondent ,ehe!ently denies ha,in" ta=en the oath of alle"iance of the >nited States. Ce is a holder of a ,alid and subsistin" Philippine passport and has

continuously participated in the electoral process in this country since 23@4 up to the present, both as a ,oter and as a candidate. 6hus, pri,ate respondent re!ains a Filip ino and the loss of his Philippine citi$enship cannot be presu!ed. Considerin" the fact that ad!ittedly Os!eNa %as both a Filipino and an )!erican, the !ere fact that he has a Certificate statin" he is an )!erican does not !ean that he is not still a Filipino . 0n the case of Os!eNa, the Certification that he is an )!erican does not !ean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citi$enships. 0ndeed, there is no e-press renunciation here of Philippine citi$enship& truth to tell, there is e,en no i!plied renunciation of said citi$enship. .hen %e consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citi$enship !ust be He-pressH, it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine Bciti$e nship %hen there is no renunciation either HBe-pressH or Hi!pliedH

TITLE: BENGZON VS. CRUZ CITATION: G.R. NO. 14230 DATE: MA4 7, 2001 FACTS: Cru$ %as born in 6arlac in 23@: of Filipino parents, but lost his citi$enship after enlistin" in the >S Marine Corps and later naturali$ed as a >S citi$en. Ce reacquired his citi$enship throu"h repatriation and ran for Con"ress. .hen he %on, his opponent clai!ed that he %as no lon"er a natural#born Filipino and therefore ineli"ible as a !e!ber of Con"ress.

6he Supre!e Court ruled in fa,or of Cru$, statin" that Lrepatriation allo%s one to reco,er, or return to, his ori"inal status before he lost his Philippine citi$enship.M 6he 2389 Constitution defines natural#born citi$ens as Lthose citi$ens of the Philippines %ithout ha,in" to perfor! any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citi$enship.M

ISSUE: .hether or not repatriation causes a person, for!erly a natural#born Filipino, to re"ain his citi$enship in its ori"inal state/

THE COURTS RULING: Faturali$ation is a !ode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citi$enship. Co!!on%ealth )ct Fo. 794 or the <e,ised Faturali$ation La% "o,erns the process of naturali$ation to acquire citi$enship. For reacquisition of citi$enship, C) Fo. @4 is applicable. 6he applicant, under both la%s, Lhas to pro,e that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications pro,ided by la% to beco!e a Filipino citi$en.M <epatriation !ay be used to reacquire citi$enship for those %ho ha,e lost it throu"h LD2E desertion of the ar!ed forces& D;E ser,ice in the )r!ed Forces of the >nited States at any other ti!e& D4E !arria"e of a Filipino %o!an to an alien& and D7E political and econo!ic necessity.M I4J )side fro! different require!ents, naturali$ation and repatriation also ha,e different processes. L)s distin"uished fro! the len"thy process of naturali$ation, repatriation si!ply consists of the ta=in" of an oath of alle"iance to the <epublic of the Philippines and re"isterin" said oath in the Local Ci,il <e"istry of the place %here the person concerned resides or last resided.M Further!ore, repatriation results in the L recovery of the original nationality.M

Since citi$enship !ay be classified as either natural#born or naturali$ed, and those %ho repatriated clearly do not fall under the process of naturali$ation, Cru$ %as considered a natural#born citi$en. 6hou"h both naturali$ation and repatriation are %ays by %hich a for!er Filipino citi$en !ay reacquire citi$enship, repatriation is "ranted to a !ore li!ited nu!ber of people. More

i!portance %as "i,en to those %ho ha,e lost their citi$enship throu"h the desertion of the ar!ed forces, ser,ice in the )r!ed Forces of the >nited States, !arria"e of a Filipino %o!an to a forei"ner, and political or econo!ic necessity. 1ue to this distinction !ade, it is understandable that these people ha,e been "i,en the pri,ile"e to re"ain their ori"inal citi$enship %ithout "oin" throu"h the !ore tedious process of naturali$ation. Co%e,er, there is still so!e a!bi"uity, since the Constitution itself states that natural#born citi$ens are those %ho do not need to perfor! any other act to perfect or obtain their citi$enship. 6hou"h reacquisition is not !entioned, it could be said that their citi$enship, if not totally lost, %as burdened by so!e i!perfection, since they so!eho% "ained alle"iance to another country. Since they need to perfor! an act to perfect their citi$enship once a"ain, they should be considered naturali$ed and not natural born citi$ens. ustice +uttiere$, in his dissent, said that the pro,ision on natural born citi$enship is Lprecise, clear and definiteM, and should not be construed in any other %ay Laside fro! %hat its plain !eanin" con,eys.M Ce said that it %as an issue that should be left to Constitutional a!end!ent.

TITLE: FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC

CITATION: 174 SCRA 241 AND 217 SCRA 727 DATE: 5UNE 23, 1939 FACTS: Petitioner uan +. Fri,aldo %as proclai!ed "o,ernor#elect and assu!e office in due ti!e. 6he Lea"ue of Municipalities filed %ith the COMELEC a petition for annul!ent of Fri,aldo?s election and procla!ation on the "round that he %as not a Filipino citi$en, ha,in" been naturali$ed in the >nited States. Fri,aldo ad!itted the alle"ation but pleaded the special and affir!ati,e defenses that his naturali$ation %as !erely forced upon hi!self as a !eans of sur,i,al a"ainst the unrelentin" prosecution by the Martial La% 1ictator?s a"ent abroad.

ISSUES: .hether or not Fri,aldo %as a citi$en of the Philippines at the ti!e of his election/ .hat is the effect of repatriation/ .hen should the repatriation be rec=oned/

THE COURTS RULING: Fo. Section 229 of the O!nibus Election Code pro,ides that a qualified ,oter !ust be, a!on" other qualifications, a citi$en of the Philippines, this bein" an indispensable require!ent for suffra"e under )rticle V, Section 2, of the Constitution. E,en if he did lose his naturali$ed )!erican citi$enship, such forfeiture did not and could not ha,e the effect of auto!atically restorin" his citi$enship in the Philippines that he had earlier renounced. Kualifications for public office are continuin" require!ents and !ust be possessed not only at the ti!e of appoint!ent or election or assu!ption of office but durin" the officer?s entire tenure. Fri,aldo declared not a citi$en of the Philippines and therefore disqualified fro! ser,in" as a +o,ernor of the Pro,ince of Sorso"on.

0n his <eply, Fri,aldo insisted that he %as a citi$en of the Philippines because his naturali$ation as an )!erican citi$en %as not Hi!pressed %ith ,oluntariness.H 0n support he cited the Fotteboh! Case, ID2355 0.C. . 7& 73 ). .0.L. 43@ D2355EJ %here a +er!an nationalBs naturali$ation in Liechtenstein %as not reco"ni$ed because it had been obtained for reasons of con,enience only. Ce said he could not ha,e repatriated hi!self before the 2388 elections because the Special Co!!ittee on Faturali$ation created for the purpose by LO0 Fo. ;9C had not yet been or"ani$ed then. Cis oath in his certificate of

candidacy that he %as a natural#born citi$en should be a sufficient act of repatriation.

)dditionally, his acti,e participation in the 2389 con"ressional elections had di,ested hi! of )!erican citi$enship under the la%s of the >nited States, thus restorin" his Philippine citi$enship. Ce ended by reiteratin" his prayer for the re*ection of the !o,e to disqualify hi! for bein" ti!e#barred under Section ;54 of the O!nibus Election Code.

6here is yet another reason %hy the pri!e issue of citizenship should be rec=oned fro! the date of procla!ation, not necessarily the date of election or date of filin" of the certificate of candidacy. Section ;54 of the O!nibus Election Code "i,es any ,oter, presu!ably includin" the defeated candidate, the opportunity to question the EL0+0'0L06A Dor the disloyaltyE of a candidate. 6his is the only pro,ision of the Code that authori$es a re!edy on ho% to contest before the COMELEC an incu!bentBs ineli"ibility arisin" fro! failure to !eet the qualifications enu!erated under Sec. 43 of the Local +o,ern!ent Code. Such re!edy of Quo Warranto can be a,ailed of H%ithin ten days after procla!ationH of the %innin" candidate. Cence, it is only at such time that the issue of ineli"ibility !ay be ta=en co"ni$ance of by the Co!!ission. )nd since, at the ,ery !o!ent of LeeBs procla!ation D8G4: p.!., une 4:, 2335E, uan +. Fri,aldo %as already and indubitably a citi$en, ha,in" ta=en his oath of alle"iance earlier in the afternoon of the sa!e day, then he should ha,e been the candidate proclai!ed as he unquestionably "arnered the hi"hest nu!ber of ,otes in the i!!ediately precedin" elections and such oath had already cured his pre,ious H*udicially#declaredH aliena"e. Cence, at such ti!e, he %as no lon"er ineli"ible.

TITLE: CO VS. HRET CITATION: G.R. NO. 92191692 DATE: 5UL4 30, 1991 FACTS: 6he C<E6 declared that respondent ose On", r. is a natural born Filipino citi$en and a resident of Laoan", Forthern Sa!ar for ,otin" purposes. 6he con"ressional election for the second district of Forthern Sa!ar %as held. )!on" the candidates %ho ,ied for the position of representati,e in the second le"islati,e district are the petitioners, Si-to 'alinquit and )ntonio Co and the pri,ate respondent, ose On", r. <espondent On" %as proclai!ed the duly elected representati,e of the second district of Forthern Sa!ar. 6he petitioners filed election protests on the "rounds that ose On", r. is not a natural born citi$en of the Philippines and not a resident of the second district of Forthern Sa!ar.

ISSUES: .hether or not ose On", r. is a citi$en of the Philippines/ .hat is the effect of naturali$ation to the !inor children/ 0s the child considered natural born citi$en for purposes for runnin" for election/ THE COURTS RULING: Aes. 0n the year 2835, the pri,ate respondent?s "randfather, On" 6e, arri,ed in the Philippines fro!China and established his residence in the !unicipality of Laoan", Sa!ar. 6he father of the pri,ate respondent, ose On" Chuan %as

born in China in 23:5 but %as brou"ht by On" 6e to Sa!ar in the year 2325, he filed %ith the court an application for naturali$ation and %as declared a Filipino citi$en. 0n 2387, the pri,ate respondent !arried a Filipina na!ed 1esiree Li!. For the elections of 2387 and238@, ose On", r. re"istered hi!self as a ,oter of Laoan", Sa!ar, and ,oted there durin" those elections. >nder the 2394 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino !others %ith an alien father %ere placed on equal footin". 6hey %ere both considered as natural born citi$ens. 'esides, pri,ate respondent did !ore than !erely e-ercise his ri"ht of suffra"e. Ce has established his life here in the Philippines. On the issue of residence, it is not required that a person should ha,e a house in order to establish his residence and do!icile. 0t is enou"h that he should li,e in the !unicipality or in a rented house or in that of a friend or relati,e. 6o require hi! to o%n property in order to be eli"ible to run for Con"ress %ould be tanta!ount to a property qualification. 6he Constitution only requires that the candidate !eet the a"e, citi$enship, ,otin" and residence require!ents.

6hose born before anuary 29, 2394, of Filipino !others, %ho elect Philippine citi$enship upon reachin" the a"e of !a*ority. 6he Court in this case is faced %ith the duty of interpretin" the abo,e#quoted constitutional pro,isions. 6he first sentence of Section ; of )rticle 0V states the basic definition of a natural#born Filipino citi$en. 1oes pri,ate respondent fall %ithin said definition/ 6o the respondent tribunal, Protestee !ay e,en be declared a natural#born citi$en of the Philippines under the first sentence of Sec. ; of )rticle 0V of the 2389 Constitution because he did not ha,e Hto perfor! any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citi$enship.H 0t bears to repeat that on 25 May 2359, %hile still a !inor of 3 years he already beca!e a Filipino citi$en by declaration of la%. Since his !other %as a natural#born citi$en at the ti!e of her !arria"e, protestee had an inchoate ri"ht to Philippine citi$enship at the !o!ent of his birth and, consequently the declaration by ,irtue of Sec. 25 of C) 794 that he %as a Filipino citi$en retroacted to the !o!ent of his birth %ithout his ha,in" to perfor! any act to acquire or perfect such Philippine citi$enship.

Second sentence in )rticle 0V, Section ; of the 2389 Constitution. 0t e-pands, in a !anner of spea=in", in relation to Section 2, para"raph D4E of the sa!e )rticle 0V, the status of a natural#born Filipino citi$en to those %ho elect Philippine citi$enship upon reachin" the a"e of !a*ority. 6he ri"ht or pri,ile"e of election is a,ailable, ho%e,er, only to those born to Filipino !others under the 2345 Constitution, and before the 2394 Constitution too= effect on 29 anuary 2394.

TITLE: TABASA VS. COURT OF APPEALS CITATION: G.R. NO. 121793 DATE: AUGUST 29, 2006 FACTS: 6he facts as culled by the C) fro! the records sho% that petitioner oe,anie )rellano 6abasa %as a natural#born citi$en of the Philippines. 0n 23@8,I4J %hen petitioner %as se,en years old,I7J his father, <odolfo 6abasa, beca!e a naturali$ed citi$enI5J of the >nited States. 'y deri,ati,e naturali$ation Dciti$enship deri,ed fro! that of another as fro! a person %ho holds citi$enship by ,irtue of naturali$ation I@JE, petitioner also acquired )!erican citi$enship. Petitioner arri,ed in the Philippines on )u"ust 4, 2335, and %as ad!itted as a Lbali=bayanM for one year. 6hereafter, petitioner %as arrested and detained by a"ent .ilson Soluren of the '01 on May ;4, 233@, pursuant to '01 Mission

Order Fo. L0V#3@#9; in 'aybay, Malay, )=lan& subsequently, he %as brou"ht to the '01 1etention Center in Manila.I9J Petitioner %as in,esti"ated by Special Prosecutor )tty. Edy 1. 1onato at the La% and 0n,esti"ation 1i,ision of the '01 on May ;8, 233@& and on the sa!e day, 6abasa %as accused of ,iolatin" Section 8, Chapter 4, 6itle 2, 'oo= 4 of the 2389 )d!inistrati,e Code, in a char"e sheet %hich alle"edG 2. herein 6hat on 4 )u"ust 2335, respondent Dpetitioner I6abasaJE arri,ed in the Philippines and %as

ad!itted as a bali=bayan& ;. 6hat in a letter dated 2@ )pril 233@, Conorable

(e,in Cerbert, Consul +eneral of ItheJ >.S. E!bassy, infor!ed the 'ureau that respondent?s Passport Fo. :54857283 issued on California, >.S.)., 1epart!ent of State& 4. Cence, respondent Ipetitioner 6abasa is no% une 2:, 2337 in San Francisco, been re,o=ed by the >.S. had

an undocu!ented and undesirable alien and !ay be su!!arily deported pursuant to La% and 0ntelli"ence 0nstructions Fo. 54 issued by then Co!!issioner Miria! 1efensor Santia"o to effect his deportation DE-hibit 4E. Petitioner filed before the C) a Petition for Habeas Corpus %ith Preli!inary 0n*unction andOor 6e!porary <estrainin" Order I22J on May ;3, 233@, %hich %as doc=eted as C)#+.<. SP Fo. 7:992. 6abasa alle"ed that he %as not afforded due process& that no %arrant of arrest for deportation !ay be issued by i!!i"ration authorities before a final order of deportation is !ade& that no notice of the cancellation of his passport %as !ade by the >.S. E!bassy&

that he is entitled to ad!ission or to a chan"e of his i!!i"ration status as a non#quota i!!i"rant because he is !arried to a Filipino citi$en as pro,ided in Section 24, para"raph DaE of the Philippine 0!!i"ration )ct of 237:& and that he %as a natural#born citi$en of the Philippines prior to his deri,ati,e naturali$ation %hen he %as se,en years old due to the naturali$ation of his father, <odolfo 6abasa, in 23@8. )t the ti!e 6abasa filed said petition, he %as already 45 years old. On May 4:, 233@, the C) ordered the respondent 'ureau to produce the person of the petitioner on une 4, 233@ and sho% the cause of petitioner?s

detention, and restrained the 'ureau fro! su!!arily deportin" hi!. On une 4, 233@, the '01 presented 6abasa before the C)& and on une @, 233@, the C) "ranted both parties ten D2:E days %ithin %hich to file their !e!oranda, after %hich the case %ould be considered sub!itted for decision. Mean%hile, the Co!!issioner of 0!!i"ration "ranted the petitioner?s te!porary release on bail on a PhP ;:,:::.:: cash bond. Co%e,er, on une 24, 233@, petitioner filed a Supple!ental Petition alle"in" that he had acquired Filipino citi$enship by repatriation in accordance %ith <epublic )ct Fo. 8292 D<) 8292E, and that because he is no% a Filipino citi$en, he cannot be deported or detained by the respondent 'ureau.

ISSUE: .hether or not petitioner 6abasa is qualified in the repatriation of <.). 8292/

THE COURTS RULING: 6he Court finds no !erit in this petition. <) 8292, L)n )ct Pro,idin" for the <epatriation of Filipino .o!en .ho Ca,e Lost 6heir Philippine Citi$enship by Marria"e to )liens and of Fatural#'orn Filipinos,M %as enacted on October ;4, 2335. 0t pro,ides for the repatriation of only t%o D;E classes of persons, ,i$G Filipino %o!en %ho ha,e lost their Philippine citi$enship by !arria"e to aliens and natural#born Filipinos %ho ha,e lost their Philippine citi$enship, includin" their !inor children, on account of political or econo!ic necessity, !ay reacquire Philippine citi$enship throu"h repatriation in the !anner pro,ided in Section 7 of Co!!on%ealth )ct Fo. @4, as a!endedG Pro,ided, 6hat the applicant is not aG

D2E

Person opposed to or"ani$ed "o,ern!ent or affiliated %ith any

association or "roup of persons %ho uphold and teach doctrines opposin" or"ani$ed "o,ern!ent& D;E Person defendin" or teachin" the necessity or propriety of ,iolence,

personal assault, or association for the predo!inance of their ideas&

D4E D7E

Person con,icted of cri!es in,ol,in" !oral turpitude& or Person sufferin" fro! !ental alienation or incurable conta"ious

diseases. Petitioner 6abasa qualified as a natural#born Filipino %ho had not lost his Philippine citi$enship by reason of political or econo!ic necessity under <) 8292.

Persons qualified for repatriation under <) 8292 6o reiterate, the only persons entitled to repatriation under <) 8292 are the follo%in"G a. Filipino %o!en %ho lost their Philippine citi$enship by !arria"e to

aliens& and b. Fatural#born Filipinos includin" their !inor children %ho lost their

Philippine citi$enship on account of political or econo!ic necessity.

TITLE: MERCADO VS. MANZANO

CITATION: 307 DATE: MA4 26, 1999 FACTS:

SCRA

630.

G.R.

NO.

131033

Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Pri,ate respondent Eduardo Man$ano are candidates for the position of Vice#Mayor of Ma=ati City in the May, 2338 elections. Pri,ate respondent %as the %inner of the said election but the procla!ation %as suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Ma!aril re"ardin" the citi$enship of pri,ate respondent. Ma!aril alle"ed that the pri,ate respondent is not a citi$en of the Philippines but of the >nited States. COMELEC "ranted the petition and disqualified the pri,ate respondent for bein" a dual citi$en, pursuant to the Local +o,ern!ent code that pro,ides that persons %ho possess dual citi$enship are disqualified fro! runnin" any public position. Pri,ate respondent filed a !otion for reconsideration %hich re!ained pendin" until after election. Petitioner sou"ht to inter,ene in the case for disqualification. COMELEC re,ersed the decision and declared pri,ate respondent qualified to run for the position. Pursuant to the rulin" of the COMELEC, the board of can,assers proclai!ed pri,ate respondent as ,ice !ayor. 6his petition sou"ht the re,ersal of the resolution of the COMELEC and to declare the pri,ate respondent disqualified to hold the office of the ,ice !ayor of Ma=ati.

ISSUES: .hether or Fot pri,ate respondent is qualified to hold office as Vice# Mayor/ .hat is the effect of one?s certificate of candidacy on his alien citi$enship/

THE COURTS RULING: 1ual citi$enship is different fro! dual alle"iance. 6he for!er arises %hen, as a result of the concurrent application of the different la%s of t%o or !ore states, a person is si!ultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation !ay arise %hen a person %hose parents are citi$ens of a state %hich adheres to the principle of *us san"uinis is born in a state %hich follo%s the doctrine of *us soli. Pri,ate respondent is considered as a dual citi$en because he is born of Filipino parents but %as born in San Francisco, >S). Such a person, ipso facto and %ithout any ,oluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citi$en of both states. Considerin" the citi$enship clause D)rt. 0VE of our Constitution, it is possible for the follo%in" classes of citi$ens of the Philippines to posses dual citi$enshipG

D2E 6hose born of Filipino fathers andOor !others in forei"n countries %hich follo% the principle of *us soli& D;E 6hose born in the Philippines of Filipino !others and alien fathers if by the la%s of their fathers? country such children are citi$ens of that country& D4E 6hose %ho !arry aliens if by the la%s of the latter?s country the for!er are considered citi$ens, unless by their act or o!ission they are dee!ed to ha,e renounced Philippine citi$enship. 1ual alle"iance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in %hich a person si!ultaneously o%es, by so!e positi,e act, loyalty to t%o or !ore states. .hile dual citi$enship is in,oluntary, dual alle"iance is the result of an indi,idual?s ,olition. 'y filin" a certificate of candidacy %hen he ran for his present post, pri,ate respondent elected Philippine citi$enship and in effect renounced his )!erican citi$enship. 6he filin" of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his )!erican citi$enship, effecti,ely re!o,in" any disqualification he !i"ht ha,e as a dual citi$en. 'y declarin" in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citi$en& that he is not a per!anent resident or i!!i"rant of another country& that he %ill defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and alle"iance thereto and that he does so %ithout !ental reser,ation, pri,ate respondent has, as far as the la%s of this country are concerned, effecti,ely repudiated his )!erican citi$enship and anythin" %hich he !ay ha,e said before as a dual citi$en. On the other hand, pri,ate respondent?s oath of alle"iance to the Philippine, %hen considered %ith the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, recei,ed his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and ta=en part in past elections in this country, lea,es no doubt of his election of Philippine citi$enship.

TITLE: JACOT VS. DAL AND COMELEC CITATION: G.R. NO. 179343 DATE: NO7EMBER 27, 2003 FACTS: Petitioner Festor acot assails the <esolution of COMELEC disqualifyin" hi! fro! runnin" for the position of Vice#Mayor of Catar!an, Ca!i"uin, in the 27 May ;::9 Fational and Local Elections, on the "round that he failed to !a=e a personal renounce!ent of >S citi$enship. Ce %as a natural born citi$en of the Philippines, %ho beca!e a naturali$ed citi$en of the >S on 24 1ece!ber 2383. Ce sou"ht to reacquire his Philippine citi$enship under <epublic )ct Fo. 3;;5.

ISSUES: .hether or not Festor acot effecti,ely renounce his >S citi$enship so as to qualify hi! to run as a ,ice#!ayor/ 0s there a difference in the !anner of renunciation of alien citi$enship before one is qualified to run as co!pared to the Man$ano case/ 0s the !ere filin" of certificate of candidacy an effecti,e renunciation/

THE COURTS RULING:

Fo. 0t bears to e!phasi$e that the oath of alle"iance is a "eneral require!ent for all those %ho %ish to run as candidates in Philippine elections& %hile the renunciation of forei"n citi$enship is an additional requisite only for those %ho ha,e retained or reacquired Philippine citi$enship under <epublic )ct Fo. 3;;5 and %ho see= electi,e public posts, considerin" their special circu!stance of ha,in" !ore than one citi$enship. 6hose see=in" electi,e public office in the Philippines shall !eet the qualifications for holdin" such public office as required by the Constitution and e-istin" la%s and, at the ti!e of the filin" of the certificate of candidacy,

!a=e a personal and s%orn renunciation of any and all forei"n citi$enship before any public officer authori$ed to ad!inister an oath.

Ce a,ers that he e-ecuted an act of renunciation of his >S citi$enship, separate fro! the Oath of )lle"iance to the <epublic of the Philippines he too= before the Los )n"eles PC+ and his filin" of his Certificate of Candidacy, thereby chan"in" his theory of the case durin" the appeal. Ce attributes the delay in the presentation of the affida,it to his for!er counsel, )tty. Marciano )parte, %ho alle"edly ad,ised hi! that said piece of e,idence %as unnecessary but %ho, ne,ertheless, !ade hi! e-ecute an identical docu!ent entitled HOath of <enunciation of )lle"iance to the >nited States and <enunciation of )ny and )ll Forei"n Citi$enshipH on ;9 une ;::9 after he had already filed his Certificate of Candidacy.