Você está na página 1de 12

THE NATIONALITY THEORY

1. What are the weaknesses of the nationality theory?


a
b
c
d

It offers no solution to the problem of a stateless person or one with dual or multiple
citizenship.
It is unfair to consider a person still bound by his national law if he has lived in
another country for most of his life and practically all his ties are with that country.
It is sometimes difficult for persons who want to change their national laws (like
refugees from Communist countries) to be naturalized in other countries.
It is also sometimes difficult to solve problems relating to individuals in countries
where most of the people, having come from other countries, have different national
laws or legal systems.

2. Since citizens and nationals are the same in Conflict of Laws, we should know who are
Filipino citizens considering that Philippine law follows them wherever they go in matters
of status, legal capacity, and family relations. It is, therefore, important for us to review
Philippine law on citizenship.
First of all, what are the different kinds of citizens in the Philippines?
Filipino citizens are either natural-born citizens, or naturalized citizens.
(a) Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship (Art. IV, sec. 2, 1987
Constitution).
Originally classified as citizens by election were those born before the 1973
Constitution of Filipino mothers but of alien fathers who, upon reaching the age of 21 or within a
reasonable time thereafter, elected Philippine citizenship. But with the provision of the 1987
Constitution also considering as natural-born citizens those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, those
classified before as citizens by election are now considered natural-born citizens.
Note: Native-born Filipino citizens are those born in the Philippines. Natural-born
citizens may not be native born if they were born abroad.
(b) Citizens by naturalization are those who were formerly aliens but by judicial,
legislative, or administrative process, have become Filipino citizens.
Foreign women who are married to Filipino husbands may also be considered citizens
by naturalization through said marriage if they have no disqualifications to become Filipino
citizens by naturalization, and the wives and minor children of those who had been naturalized
as Filipino citizens are also considered to be naturalized citizens by derivative naturalization.
3. What do you understand by the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis in the law on
citizenship?
Jus soli - A person is a citizen of the country where he was born, or of the country of his
birth. Thus, the baby of Filipino parents but born in the U,S. is not only a Filipino but also an
American citizen under "the principle of jus soli, which the U.S. follows.

Jus sanguinis - This is the rule that we follow in the Philippines. It is citizenship by
blood; i.e., those whose fathers or mothers, or whose both parents are Filipino citizens, is a
Filipino citizen.
4. Who determines whether a person is a citizen of a certain state or country? For
example, who determines whether a person is a Filipino citizen or not?
Each country or state has the sole power and authority to determine under its internal or
municipal law who are its citizens or nationals. As provided in Art. 2 of the Hague Convention on
Conflict of Nationality Laws (April 12, 1930):
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a
particular state should be determined in accordance with the law of that state.
Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines determines who are Filipino citizens.
No foreign law, or no law of a foreign country, can determine who are Filipinos. Similarly, our
Constitution and laws cannot determine who are, for example, Chinese or American citizens.
Only the law of China, or the law of the United States, can determine who are its citizens.
5. Considering that only the Philippines can determine who are Filipino citizens, may the
problem of the dual or multiple citizenship of a Filipino arise in the Philippines?
No, because as already stated, as long as he is a Filipino citizen, our country is not
concerned if he has any other citizenship. For example, if he was born of Filipino parents, he is
a natural-born citizen under the rule of jus sanguinis. He may also be a U.S. citizen under the
principle of jus soli if he was born in U.S. soil. But from the point of view of our Constitution and
law, he is only a Filipino citizen, period.
6. What about Sec. 5, Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution providing that "dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law"? Does this
provision prohibit Filipinos from having dual citizenship?
No. Dual citizenship cannot be avoided due to the diverse laws of the different countries
of the world as to who are their citizens and who are not. So, a Filipino may have dual
citizenship, as shown in Question 5 hereof. But the concern of the aforesaid provision of the
Constitution is not with dual citizenship per se but with naturalized citizens of the Philippines
who still maintain their allegiance to the countries of their origin. Thus, for candidates for public
office with dual citizenship, suffice it that upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, they
elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship, considering
that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states.
(Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 [1999]).
7. In what case or cases may a Filipino have dual citizenship from the point of view of a
third state?
(a) In a case where a Filipino (because his parents are Filipinos) was born in American
soil, he is a Filipino under the rule of jus sanguinis while he is an American under the rule of jus
soli.

(b) If a Filipino woman marries a foreigner whose national law allows her to become a
citizen of her husband's country like China by such marriage, she still retains her Philippine
citizenship under Art. IV, sec. 4 of the 1987 Constitution, unless by her act or omission, she is
deemed to have renounced her Philippine citizenship. Therefore, she would be both a Filipino
and a Chinese citizen, if she does nothing to renounce her Philippine citizenship.
8. Give an example of a problem involving an alien who, from the point of view of the
Philippines, has dual citizenship.
Example: A woman who is a Japanese citizen by blood but a Chinese citizen by
marriage, dies, leaving some properties in our country where she did some business before her
death. Since Art. 16, par. 2, of the New Civil Code, requires us to apply her national law in
determining who are her heirs and how much is the share of each, we should know which law a
Philippine court should apply to her succession; whether Japanese law or Chinese law.
9. How should the foregoing problem of dual citizenship be resolved?
We should apply the effective nationality theory previously explained. If the deceased
woman was a domiciliary of Japan at the time of her death, then the Philippine court should
apply Japanese law. If, however, she was a domiciliary of China at the time of her death, the
court should apply Chinese law. This is because the law of the country of which the
deceased was both a citizen and a domiciliary at the time of her death is considered
more effectively connected to her than her other national law. Or, stated otherwise, she
was more closely connected to the country where, being a citizen thereof, she and her
family also made it their home. Needless to say, that country where she and her family had
their home was closer to her heart than her other national law. And so, in all personal and family
matters, it is that law that the court should apply.
10. Suppose in the above problem, the deceased woman was residing at the time of her
death, not in Japan or China, but in another or a third country, like Singapore? Will the
solution to the problem be the same?
The solution would now be different because we can no longer say that she was more
closely connected to Japan or China, the countries of which she was a citizen at the time of her
death. In this case, then, the domiciliary theory comes to the rescue and will consider the
country of her domicile at the time of her death (Singapore). So, we should first apply the
nationality theory by taking her two national laws (Japanese and Chinese) and applying them
together insofar as they are consistent and harmonious with each other. But if they are
inconsistent and in conflict with each other, then we should already apply the law of Singapore,
which was her domicile and home at the time of her death.
11. Suppose the person whose succession is in question before a Philippine court is
stateless. How should the court decide the case?
Since the person in question is stateless and, therefore, has no national law, we cannot
apply the nationality theory (Art. 16, sec. par., New Civil Code) to him. In this case, again the
domiciliary theory comes to the rescue, and the court shall apply the law of his domicile or if he
has none, the law of the country of his temporary domicile.
12. May a declaration of Philippine citizenship be made in a petition for naturalization?

In Comm. of Immigration v. Garcia, L-28082, June 28, 1974, the Supreme Court held
that the court, in a petition for naturalization, cannot make a declaration that the applicant is
already a Filipino citizen for the reason that in this jurisdiction, there can be do independent
action for the judicial declaration of ones citizenship. Courts of justice exist only for the
settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a legal remedy for the breach of said
right.
13. May a declaration of Philippine citizenship be made in a special proceeding for
correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?
In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court formerly held that since a petition under Rule
108 contemplates a summary proceeding, substantial errors like citizenship cannot be corrected
therein. However, this ruling has already been superseded by subsequent cases (Tolentino v.
Paras, 122 SCRA 526; Rep. v. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462; Rep. v. Belmonte, 158 SCRA 173,
among others) to the effect that if all procedural requirements of Rule 108 are followed and all
persons with interest in the wrong entry had been notified and a full blown trial is held, the
proceedings are no longer summary but adversarial, and substantial errors like citizenship can
already be corrected under Rule 108.
14. Who are citizens of the Philippines under the 1987 Constitution?
Art. IV, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution enumerates the citizens of the Philippines as
follows:
(l) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
15. Who were citizens of the Philippines under the 1973 Constitution?
Art. Ill, Section l (l) of the 1973 Constitution provides that the following are citizens of the
Philippines:
(l) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
of 1935; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
16. Since the 1973 Constitution considers as Filipino citizens those who were such at the
time of the adoption of said Constitution on January 17,1973, who are those referred to in
said provision?
They are those enumerated in Art. IV, 1935 Constitution, to wit:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution of the Philippines;

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of
this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands;
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine citizenship;
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
17. Differentiate the citizenship of children born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers
under the 1935 Constitution, from those born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers under
the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
While the 1935 Constitution considers as Filipino citizens at birth or as natural-born
citizens only those whose fathers were Filipinos at the time of their birth, while those born of
Filipino mothers and alien fathers still had to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority
before they could be Filipino citizens, this injustice to children of Filipino mothers (who are really
Filipinos because Filipino blood flows through their veins) was later corrected by the 1973 and
1987 Constitutions, which already consider as natural-born citizens those born of Filipino
mothers, even if the fathers were aliens. In other words, those born after the effectivity of the
1973 Constitution on January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers but of aliens fathers are already
Filipinos at birth without need of electing Philippine citizenship.
18. In the case of election of Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution, as of
what time should the mother be a Filipino? At the time of her marriage to an alien, at the
time of the childs birth, or at the time of the childs election upon reaching the age of
majority?
At the time of the mothers marriage to an alien. For if we require the mother to be a
Filipino at the time of the childs birth, very few children will be benefited by the provision
because the mother would have already become an alien at the time of her marriage (following
the husbands alien citizenship) and before the childs birth. Likewise, if we require that the
mother should be a Filipino citizen at the time of the child's election, again very few children
would be able to elect, because their mothers would have already become aliens when they got
married to their alien husbands and long before the birth of the children.
19. Where do you find the law providing for election of Philippine citizenship under the
1935 Constitution?
The law is Commonwealth Act No. 625.
20. Who were Filipino citizens at the time of the adoption of the 1935 Constitution on May
14, 1935?
(1) Those born in the Philippines who resided therein on April 11, 1899 (the date of the
ratification of the Treaty of Paris between the U.S. and Spain) and were Spanish subjects on
that date, unless they had lost their Philippine citizenship on May 14, 1935;
(2) Natives of the Spanish Peninsula who resided in the Philippines on April 11, 1899,
and who did not declare their intention of preserving their Spanish nationality between that
date and October 11, 1900 (the time provided for doing so), unless they had lost their
citizenship by May 14, 1935;

(3) Naturalized citizens of Spain who resided in the Philippines on April 11, 1899 and
who did not declare their intention of preserving their Spanish nationality between that date
and October 11, 1900, unless they had lost their citizenship by May 14, 1935;
(4) Children born of (l), (2), and (3) subsequent to April 11, 1899, unless they had lost
their Philippine citizenship by May 14, 1935;
(5) Persons who became naturalized citizens of the Philippines in accordance with the
procedure set forth in the Naturalization Law since its enactment on March 22, 1920, unless
they had lost their Philippine citizenship on or before May 14, 1935;
(6) Children of persons embraced in (5), unless they had lost their Philippine citizenship
on or before May 14, 1935;
(7) Filipino women who, after having lost Philippine citizenship by marriage to foreigners,
had subsequently become widows and regained Philippine citizenship on or before May 14,
1935
(8) Children of (7) who were still under 21 years of age at the time their mothers
regained Philippine citizenship (Roa v. Collector, 23 Phil. 321; Talaroc y. Uy, GR L-5397,
Sept. 26, 1952);
(9) Foreign women who, before May 14, 1935, got married to citizens of the Philippines,
who might themselves be lawfully naturalized in the Philippines, unless they had lost their
Philippine citizenship on or before May 14, 1935;
(10) All other persons born in the Philippines who, on the strength of the erroneous
application of the jus soli doctrine in the Roa case, were mistakenly declared by the courts
as Filipino citizens, unless they had lost their citizenship by May 14, 1935. These are
citizens by res judicata. (See Tan Chong v. Sec. of Labor, GR L-47616, Sept. 16, 1947:
Talaroc v. Uy, supra).
(Paras, supra, pp. 122-124)
21. Why is the law on election of citizenship under the 1935 Constitution a transitory law?
Because it was effective only as long as there were children of Filipino mothers and alien
fathers who were allowed to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching 21 years. However, after
1994 (21 years from the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution), there were no longer those who
could elect Philippine citizenship, because all of them would hare already reached 21 and they
either had already elected or did not elect at all, in which latter case they continued to be aliens
following the citizenship of their fathers.
22. Suppose the Filipino mother of a child born under the 1935 Constitution was not
legally married to her alien husband, what is the citizenship of the child?
The child, being illegitimate, followed the citizenship of the mother without need of
election. Hence, the child is a Filipino from birth.
23. What is the citizenship of a Filipino woman who marries a foreigner?

(1) Prior to the 1973 Constitution: If she acquired the nationality of her alien husband,
she lost her Philippine citizenship. Otherwise, she remained a Filipino. Examples are
the many Filipinas who married Chinese husbands legally. Since under the law of
China, they followed their husbands citizenship, they all became Chinese. That is
why many Filipinas later opted not to marry their Chinese husbands legally, so that
they would remain Filipinos and their children, being illegitimate, are also Filipinos.
(2) Under the 1973 Constitution: A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an
alien shall retain her Philippine citizenship, unless by her act or omission, she is
deemed, under the law, to have renounced her Philippine citizenship (Art. Ill, Sec., 2,
1973 Constitution)
(3) Under the 1987 Constitution: Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall
retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they are deemed, under the
law, to have renounced their Philippine citizenship (Art. IV, Sec. 4, 1987
Constitution).
Note: Unlike the similar provision in the 1973 Constitution, the above provision of the
1987 Constitution now applies to both males and females who marry aliens.
24. What is the citizenship of an alien woman who marries a Filipino husband?
(1) In the case of Zita Ngo Burca v. Republic, Jan.20, 1967, it was held that the proper
proceeding wherein an alien woman married to a Filipino can be herself declared a Filipino
citizen is a naturalization proceeding in a court of justice, and that any such declaration by
any other office or agency is null and void.
Many Filipinos criticized said ruling, because it imposed more stringent requirements on
an alien wife of a Filipino husband who ordinarily follows the citizenship of the latter, than an
applicant for naturalization. Fortunately, this ruling was later abandoned.
(2) In Moya Ya Lim Yao v. Comm. of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292 (1971), the Supreme
Court reversed the Burca ruling and held that under Sec. 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 [the
Revised Naturalization Law], an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native-born or naturalized,
becomes ipso facto a Filipino provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines
under Sec. 4 of the same law. This decision in effect ruled that it is not necessary for the alien
wife of a Filipino husband to prove in a court proceeding that she possesses all the
qualifications set forth in Sec. 2 and none of the disqualifications under Sec. 4, both of the
Revised Naturalization Law. It is enough that she proves that she is not disqualified to be a
Filipino citizen not necessarily in court but even before an agency like the Immigration
Commission.
Note also that an alien woman married to an alien husband who (the husband) is
subsequently naturalized also follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband, provided she
does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under Sec. 4 of the same Revised
Naturalization Law. This is a case of derivative naturalization (similar to the minor children of a
naturalized Filipino citizen).
(3) However, in the recent case of Djumanton v. Domingo, 240 SCRA 746, the Supreme
Court held that there is no law guarantying aliens married to Filipinos the right to be admitted

into, much less given permanent residence in, the Philippines. Entry of aliens into the
Philippines and their admission as immigrants is not a matter of right, even if they are legally
married to Filipinos. Marriage of an alien woman to a husband does not ipso facto make her a
Filipino citizen and does not excuse her from her failure to depart from the Philippine upon the
expiration of her extended stay here as an alien.
Note: Unlike the Moya Lim case where the alien woman married to a Filipino husband
did not appear to have any disqualification for naturalization, the alien woman in the above
Djumanton case refused to leave this country even after the expiration of her extended stay
here and instead got married to a Filipino, apparently to avoid her deportation.
25. What is naturalization, and what are the different modes of naturalization?
Naturalization is the process of conferring on an alien the citizenship of another country,
by any of the means provided by law. It is considered not a matter of right but one of privilege
and may be enjoyed only under the precise conditions prescribed by law.
The modes of acquiring Philippine citizenship by naturalization are:
(1) By judicial process in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 475, as amended by
Republic Act No. 530;
(2) By legislative process; i.e., when Philippine citizenship is conferred by a special act of
Congress on deserving aliens;
(3) By administrative process, under Rep. Act No. 9139, otherwise known as "The
Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000", approved in 2001. Under this law, a Special
Committee on Naturalization is created, with the power to approve, deny or reject
applications for naturalization filed with said Committee. Members of the Committee are
the Solicitor General as chairman, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his
representative and the National Security Adviser as members.
Derivative naturalization is Philippine citizenship conferred on: (l) the wife of a
naturalized husband; (2) the minor children of a naturalized father; and (3) the alien wife of a
natural-born or naturalized citizen, in the latter case, the marriage having taken place after
husbands naturalization.
Be it remembered that during the period of Martial law, Pres. Marcos issued Letter of
Instruction (LOl) No. 270 providing for naturalization by Presidential Decree. The applicants
were screened by a Special Committee in a summary manner, which then recommended those
found eligible for naturalization under said LOI to Pres. Marcos, who would issue a decree
declaring as naturalized Filipino citizens those included in the list recommended by the Special
Committee. Said Committee is similar to the Committee on Naturalization created by the
recently approved Rep. Act No. 9139.
26. What are the qualifications for judicial naturalization under Sec 2, C.A. No. 473, as
amended?
(1) The petitioner must not be less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing of the
petition;

(2) He must have, as a rule, resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less
than ten years;
(3) He must be of good moral character, and believe in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in
his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which
he is living;
(4) He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000, Philippine
currency, or must have some lucrative trade, profession, or occupation;
(5) He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal
Philippine languages; and
(6) He must have enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public or private
schools recognized by the Bureau of Private Schools where Philippine history,
government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum
during the entire period of the residence required of him, prior to the hearing of his
petition for naturalization as citizen.
27. What are the disqualifications for naturalization under C.A. No. 473, as amended?
According to Sec. 4 of said Act, the following cannot be naturalized as Philippine
citizens:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with, any association or


group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments;
Persons defending or teaching the propriety of violence, personal assault or
assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;
Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
Persons convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;
Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not
mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn
and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war; and
Citizens or subjects of a foreign country (other than the United States) whose laws
do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

28. What are the qualifications for administrative naturalization under Sec. 3 of Rep. Act
9139?
(1) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
(2) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
filing of his/her petition;
(3) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying
principles of the Constitution, and must have conducted himself/herself in a proper and

irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his
relation with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which
he/she is living;
(4) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education in any
public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, government and civics are
taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not
limited to any race or nationality; Provided, that should he/she have minor children of
school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools;
(5) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation,
from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married
and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family; Provided, however, That this shall not
apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
(6) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of
the Philippines; and
(7) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
29. What are the disqualifications for naturalization under Rep. Act. 9139?
Sec. 4 of said Act provides that the following are not qualified to be naturalized under the
same:
(1) Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of
persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
(2) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, personal
assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;
(3) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
(4) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(5) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(6) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled
socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
(7) Citizens or subjects [of nations] with whom the Philippines is at war during the period
of such war; and
(8) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to
be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
30. How may Philippine citizenship be lost?
Under Commonwealth Act. 63 as amended by Rep. Act. No. 106, a Filipino citizen may
lose his citizenship in any of the following ways:
1
2

By naturalization in a foreign country;


By express renunciation of citizenship;

(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign


country upon attaining twenty-one years of age and more
(4) By rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of a foreign
country;
(5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in
time of was, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted;
and
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, if by virtue of the laws in
force in
her husband's country, she acquires his nationality.
Note, however, that under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, the woman in No. (7) above
retains her Philippine citizenship unless by her act or omission, she is deemed under the law to
have renounced her Philippine citizenship.
31. How may Philippine citizenship be reacquired?
Under Sec 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended by Rep. Act No. 106, Philippine
citizenship may be reacquired as follows:
(1) By naturalization; Provided, that the applicant possesses none of the disqualifications
prescribed in Sec. 2 of Act No. 2927;
(2) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy, or Air Corps; Provided, That a woman
who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in
accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status;
and
(3) By direct act of the National Assembly (now Congress).
32. What is the procedure incident to reacquisition of Philippine citizenship?
Sec. 3 of the same C.A. No. 63, as amended, provides as follows:
The procedure prescribed for naturalization under Act 2927, as amended, shall apply to
the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship by naturalization provided for in the next preceding
section; Provided, That the qualifications and special qualifications prescribed in Sections three
and four of said Act shall not be required; and provided further,
(1) That the applicant be at least twenty-one years of age and shall have resided in the
Philippines at least six months before he applies for naturalization;
(2) That he shall have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during
the entire period of his residence in the Philippines, in his relations with the
constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; and

(3) That he subscribes to an oath declaring his intention to renounce absolutely and
perpetually all faith and allegiance to the foreign authority, state or sovereignty of
which he was a citizen or subject.
33. How about repatriation? How can it be effected?
Sec. 4 of the same Commonwealth Act referred to above provides that "Repatriation
shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and registration in the proper civil registry."
During the regime of Pres. Marcos, however, he promulgated P.D. 725 providing that the
petition for repatriation should be filed with the same committee which he created for
naturalization, and said committee had the power to approve or disapprove the repatriation.