WILLIE YU vs.

MIRIAM
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
G.R. No. L-83882
January 24, 1989

FACTS:
Petitioner, a Portuguese national, was
originally issued a Portuguese passport in
1971.
On February 10, 1978, he was naturalized as a
Philippine citizen.
Despite his naturalization, he applied for and
was issued Portuguese Passport by the
Consular Section of the Portuguese Embassy
in Tokyo on July 21, 1981. Said Consular Office
certifies that his Portuguese passport expired
on 20 July 1986.


While still a citizen of the Philippines, he also
declared his nationality as Portuguese in
commercial documents he signed, specifically,
the Companies registry of Tai Shun Estate
Ltd.

filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
The CID detained Yu pending his deportation
case.
In turn, Yu filed a petition for habeas
corpus with the Court on July 4, 1988.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners
acts constitute renunciation of his
Philippine citizenship?
HELD:
Yes. the foregoing acts considered
together constitute an express renunciation of
petitioner's Philippine 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 explicitly and not left to
inference or implication.
Petitioner, with full knowledge and legal
capacity, after having renounced Portuguese
citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine
citizen, resumed or reacquired his prior status
as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal
of his Portuguese passport and represented
himself as such in official documents even
after he had become a naturalized Philippine
citizen.
Such resumption or reacquisition of
Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent
with his maintenance of Philippine citizenship.

While normally the question of whether or not a
person has renounced his Philippine citizenship
should be heard before a trial court of law in
adversary proceedings, this has become
unnecessary as this Court, no less, upon the
insistence of petitioner, had to look into the facts
and satisfy itself on whether or not petitioner's
claim to continued Philippine citizenship is
meritorious.
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a
commodity or were to be displayed when
required and suppressed when convenient.
JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO
vs.
COMELEC AND THE LEAGUE OF
MUNICIPALITIES, SORSOGON
CHAPTER
G.R. No. 87193
June 23, 1989

FACTS:
Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-
elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988.
On October 27, 1988, the League of Municipalities,
Sorsogon Chapter filed with COMELEC a petition for
the annulment of Frivaldos election and proclamation
on the ground that he was a naturalized American
citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on
the day of the election on January 18, 1988. He was
therefore not qualified to run for and be elected
governor.
The Solicitor General, speaking for COMELEC,
supported the contention of the respondents.
Petitioner admitted he was naturalized in the US
in 1983, but contended that he only sought
American citizenship to protect himself and
insisted that he was a citizen of the Philippines;
because his naturalization as an American citizen
was not impressed with voluntariness.
His oath in his COC that he was a natural-born
citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation.
Additionally, his active participation in the 1987
congressional elections had divested him of
American citizenship under the laws of the US,
thus restoring his Philippine citizenship.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Juan G. Frivaldo
was a citizen of the Philippines at
the time of his election, as
provincial governor of Sorsogon,
on January 18, 1988?
HELD:
No. The Court did not agree that as a
consequence of being an enemy of Marcos, he
was coerced into embracing American citizenship.
His suggestion that his naturalization was not the
result of his own free and voluntary choice was
found unacceptable and was be rejected, as there
were many other Filipinos in the US similarly
situated as Frivaldo; with some of them subject
to greater risk than he, yet did not find it
necessary to abandon their cherished status as
Filipinos.
If he really wanted to disavow his American
citizenship and reacquire Philippine citizenship,
the petitioner should have done so in accordance
with the laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as
amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725,
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct
act of Congress, by naturalization, or by
repatriation.
Even if he did lose his naturalized American
citizenship, such forfeiture did not and could
not have the effect of automatically restoring
his citizenship in the Philippines that he had
earlier renounced. At best, what might have
happened as a result of the loss of his
naturalized citizenship was that he became a
stateless individual.

Frivaldo has not taken the categorical acts to
formally reject his adopted state and reaffirm
allegiance to the Philippines.
His contention that by simply filing his
certificate of candidacy he had, without more,
already effectively recovered Philippine
citizenship. But that is hardly the formal
declaration the law envisions surely,
Philippine citizenship previously disowned is
not that cheaply recovered.