You are on page 1of 25

Conflicts of Law Outline Reviewer Sources

Direct:
Constitutions
Conflicts of Laws - That part of municipal law of a State Codifications
which directs its courts and administrative agencies, when Special Laws
confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign International
element, whether or not they should apply a foreign law/s Treatises and International Conventions
(Paras). Judicial Decisions
International Customs
(4) Elements
1. Conflict of laws is part of the municipal law of a Indirect:
state; Natural Moral Law
2. There is a directive to courts and admin Work of Writers
agencies;
3. There is a legal problem involving foreign Kilberg Doctrine
element;
4. There is either an application or a non- It is a rule to the effect that the forum is not bound by the
application of a foreign law or foreign laws. law of the place of injury or death as to the limitations on
damages for wrongful act because such rule is procedural
Distinctions between Conflicts of Law and Public and hence the law of the forum governs on this issue.
International Law (Northwest Airlines vs. CA)

Bases COL PIL Center of Gravity Doctrine


As to nature Municipal in International in
character character Choice of law problems in conflicts of law are resolved by
Persons Private Individuals Sovereign states; the application of the law of the jurisdiction which has the
involved and other entities most significant relationship to or contact with the event
possessed of an and parties to litigation and issue therein.
international
personality such as Forum Non Conveniens
the UN org
Transactions Private Generally affected A forum may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even
involved transactions by public interest; when jurisdiction is authorized by law on the ground that
between those in general the forum is inconvenient or the ends of justice would be
private are of interest only best served by trial in another forum or the controversy
individuals to sovereign may be more suitably tried elsewhere tried elsewhere.
States
Remedies Resort to -Peaceful It may be manifested in the following ways:
and municipal (diplomatic 1. The evidence and the witness may not be readily
Sanctions tribunals negotiations, tender available;
& exercise of good 2. The court dockets of the forum may already be
office, mediation, clogged to permit additional cases would
conciliation) inevitably hamper the speedy administration of
-Judicial justice;
arbitration/settleme 3. Evils of forum shopping;
nt 4. Forum has no particular interest in the case;
-Forcible 5. The case may be better tried in other courts.
(severance of
diplomatic relations, The doctrine should generally apply only if the defendant
retorsions, is a corporation
embargo, pacific
blockade, war Elements:
a. The forum State is one to which the parties

1
may conveniently resort to; Manila. The wife Magdalena C Bohonan and her two
b. It is in a position to make an intelligent children questioned the validity of the testamentary
decision as to the law and the facts; and provisions, claiming that they have been deprived of the
c. It has or is likely to have power to enforce its legitime that the laws of the Philippines, concede them.
decision. The children were only given legacies of P6,000 each,
while the wife received nothing.
Jurisdiction
Issues:
In international law, it is often defined as the right of a Is the wife entitled to any share in the estate?
State to exercise authority over persons and things within Is the failure of the testator to give his children what they
its boundaries, subject to certain exceptions. are entitled to under Philippine laws valid?
Is it necessary to reintroduce the proved Nevada Law?
Jurisdiction over the Person
Held:
1. Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is No. The laws of Nevada of which the deceased was a
acquired from the moment he invokes the aid of the citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without
court and voluntarily submits himself by institution requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife.
of the suit through proper pleadings Since no right to share in the inheritance in favor of a
divorced wife exists to share in the inheritance in favor of
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is a divorced wife exists in the state of Nevada and since
acquired through: there was no conjugal property between the testator and
a. Voluntary appearance or Magdalena C Bohanan, the latter can have no legal claim
b. Personal or Substituted service of summons to any portion of the estate left by the testator.

Jurisdiction over the Property Yes. Art 10 para 2 of the CC (now par 2, Art 16 of NCC)
provides that legal and testamentary successions, in
• Results either from seizure of the property under a respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent
legal process or from the institution of legal of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their
proceedings wherein the court’s power over the provisions. Shall be regularized by the national law of the
property is recognized and made effective. person whose succession is in question, whatever may be
• This kind of jurisdiction of jurisdiction is referred to the nature of the property and regardless of the country
as in rem jurisdiction. Another form of jurisdiction is wherein said property may be found. Pursuant to this
quasi in rem which affects only the interests of article, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be
particular persons in the thing. governed by the national law of the testator in this case,
• NOTE: Summons by publication is authorized in Nevada, which allows a testator to dispose of all his
three cases: property according to his will. The testamentary provisions
1. If the action is in rem; of the will, therefore are valid.
2. quasi in rem; and when
3. Involves the personal status of the plaintiff Fleumer vs. Hix
54 Phil 610
Philippine Trust Co. vs. Bohanan
GR L-12105, January 30, 1960 Facts: The petitioner is a special administrator of the
estate of Edward Hix. He alleged that the latter’s will was
Facts: The testator C.O. Bohanan was born in Nevada executed in Elkins, West Virginia on November 3, 1925 by
and therefore a citizen of that state, or at least a citizen of Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the
California where some of his properties were located. laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner
Notwithstanding his long stay in the Philippines, he submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as
continued to be a citizen of the US and of the state of his found in West Virginia Code, annotated by Hogg, Charles
particular choice, Nevada and remained to be a citizen of E., vol.2 1914, p. 1690 and as certified to by the Director
that state until his death. of National Library.
He declared in his will that the same was executed in The Judge of the First Instance however denied the
accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada. On April probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and 301 of
24, 1950, the will which the testator executed in Manila on the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with.
April 23, 1944 was admitted to probate in the CFI of Hence, this appeal.

2
2. What is the effect of the absence of proof to the
Issue: Is it necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of said law?
existence of such law in West Virginia as a prerequisite to Held:
the allowance and recording of said will. 1. The order of the Municipal District court of Amoy
China does not purport to probate or allow the
Held: Yes. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not will which was the subject of the proceedings. In
prove themselves in our courts. The courts of the view thereof, the will ans the alleged probate
Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice thereof cannot be said to have been done in
of the laws of the various states of the American Union. accordance with the accepted basic and
Such laws must be proved as facts. Here the fundamental concepts and principles followed in
requirements of the law were not met. There was no the probate and allowance of wills.
showing that the book from which an extract was taken Consequently, the authenticated transcript of
was printed or published under the authority of the state of proceedings held in the municipal district court of
West Virginia, as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Amoy, China cannot be deemed and accepted as
Procedure. Nor was the extract from the law attested by proceedings leading to the probate or allowance
the certificate of the officer having charge of the original, of a will.
under the seal of the State of West Virginia as provided in 2. In the absence of proof that the municipal district
Sec 301. No evidence was introduced showing that the court of Amoy is a probate court and on Chinese
extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the law of procedure in probate matters, it may be
time alleged will was executed. presumed that the proceedings in the matter of
The court therefore did not err in denying the probate of probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts
the will. The existence of such law in West Virginia must are the same as those provided for in our laws on
be proved. the subject.

In Re: Estate of Suntay Theories Why We Should Apply Foreign Laws


95 Phil 500
Facts: Theory of Comity – foreign law is applied because of its
Facts: Jose B Suntay, the testator is a Filipino Citizen and convenience & because we want to give protection to our
a resident of the Philippines. On May 14, 1934, he died in citizens, residents, & transients in our land.
the City of Amoy, Fookien Province, Republic of China,
leaving properties both in China and the Philippines and >Hilton vs. Guyot
nine children by the first marriage and 1 child by the Facts: Defendants Henry Hilton and William Libbey,
second marriage with Maria Natividad Billian, who residents of New York and trading as co-partners in Paris
survived him. On Oct 15, 1934, the surviving widow filed a under the firm name of A.T. Stewart & Co. were sued in
petition in the CFI of Bulacan for the probate of the last will France for debts due to a French firm, Charles Fortich &
and testament claimed to have been executed and signed Co. Gustave Guyot, liquidator of the French firm, sued
in the Philippines on November 1929. Hilton and Libbey on the French judgment in the US
This petition was denied because of the loss of said will Circuit Court for the Southern Distrtict of New York
and of insufficiency of the evidence to establish the loss of seeking an amount totaling over $195,000. The court held
said will. The petition was remanded to the CFI of Bulacan the judgment conclusive and entered a decree in favor of
after the Court overruled the decision on appeal. the French firm without examination anew the merits of
Subsequently, the petition was dismissed on February 7, the case.
1938.
After the war, Silvino Suntay claiming he had found Defendants question this decree on many grounds,
among the files and documents of his father a will in foremost of which that French courts gave no force and
Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased effect to the duly rendered judgments of US courts against
on January 4, 1931 and filed, recorded and probated in French citizens.
the Amoy District Court a petition praying for the probate
of the will executed in the Philippines on November 1929 Summary of ruling:
or of the will executed in Amoy, Fookien, China on No law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits
January 4, 1931. of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. The
Issue: extent to which one nation shall be allowed to operate
1. Has the existence of the said law been proved? within the dominion of another nation, depends upon the
"comity of nations."

3
"Comity", in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute Nature of foreign judgment – It is imperative that it be
obligation, nor of mere courtesy and good will. It is a proved in accordance with our prescribed rules on the
recognition which one nation allows within its territory to matter.
the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation,
having due regard both to int'l duty and convenience, and A foreign judgment is recognized when it is given the
to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are same effect that it has in the state where it was rendered
under the protection of its laws. with respect to the parties, the subject matter of the action
"The comity thus extended to other nations is no and the issues involved. Where the foreign judgment is
impeachment of sovereignty. It is the voluntary act of the being presented as a defense to the claim of the plaintiff,
nation by which it is offered, and is inadmissible when what is involved is the recognition of a foreign judgment.
contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. But it
contributes so largely to promote justice between A foreign judgment is enforced when, in addition to being
individuals, and to produce a friendly intercourse between recognized, a party is given affirmative relief to which the
the sovereignty to which they belong, that courts of justice judgment entitles him. When a plaintiff asks the court of
have continually acted upon it, as a part of the voluntary one state to carry out and make effective a judgment
law of nations." obtained by him in another state, what is involved is the
"It is not the comity of the courts, but the comity of the enforcement of a foreign judgment.
nation, which is administered and ascertained in the same
way, and guided by the same reasoning, by which all Conditions for Recognition of Foreign Judgment
other principles of municipal law are ascertained and
guided." 1. Foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or a quasi-
Notes: judicial tribunal which had competent jurisdiction over
· Comity is a general principle of international law that US the parties and the case in the proper judicial proceedings
Supreme Court has a long history of acknowledging. in which the defendant shall have be given reasonable
· A respect of reciprocity between jurisdictions Respect - notice and the opportunity to be heard;
we will not demean the laws and policies of other 2. It must be a judgment on civil and commercial
countries, because we expect other ountries to respect matters;
ours as well 3. The judgment must be valid according to the
court that delivered it; and,
Theory of Vested Rights – we seek to enforce not 4. Judgment must be final and executory to constitute res
foreign law itself but the rights that have been vested judicata in another action;
under such foreign law; an act done in another State may
give rise to the existence of a right if the laws of that State ELEMENTS: The judgment must be:
crated such right. a. Final;
b. Rendered by a competent court;
Theory of Local Law- we apply foreign law not because it c. On the Merits Involve the same parties, subject
is foreign, but because our laws, by applying similar rules, matter; and, cause of action.
require us to do so; hence, it is as if the foreign law has
become part & parcel of our local law. 5. Foreign judgment must not be contrary to the
public policy or the good morals of the State.
Theory of Harmony of Laws – we have to apply the
foreign laws so that wherever a case is decided, that is, Querubin vs. Querubin
irrespective of the forum, the solution should be 47 OG 316
approximately the same; thus, identical or similar solutions Facts: A Filipino married an American lady with whom he
anywhere & everywhere. When the goal is realized, there subsequently had a daughter. The man later obtained a
will be “harmony of laws” Californian divorce on account of his wife’s adultery with
another man. The custody of the daughter was awarded to
Theory of Justice – the purpose of all laws, including the innocent husband. However, the court said that the
Conflict of Laws, is the dispensing of justice; if this can be child could not be brought out of California without judicial
attained in many cases applying the proper foreign law, permission. A year later, the Filipino came back to the
we must do so. Philippines with the child. In the meantime, the wife had
married her former paramour and had been able to obtain
Nature and Proof of Foreign Judgment an amendment for the divorce decree, this time granting
the custody of the child to her. To obtain enforcement of

4
this amendment in the Philippines, she brought a petition When God created man,He made him in the likeness of
for the will of habeas corpus in Ilocos Sur. God;He created them male and female.
(Genesis 5:1-2)
Issue: May she be awarded with the custody of the child?
Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala
Held: No, under the Philippine law, two important things and she heard voices coming from inside the bamboo.“Oh
stand out: North Wind!North Wind!Please let us out!,” the voices
a. Preference in parental authority is given to the said.She pecked the reed once,then twice.All of a
father, not to the mother (Old Civil Code); sudden,the bamboo cracked and slit open.Out came two
b. The guilty spouse generally loses parental human beings;one was a male and the other was a
authority except if the child is under 7, there female.Amihan named the man “Malakas ”(Strong)and the
should be no separation from the mother unless woman “Maganda ” (Beautiful).(The Legend of Malakas
there be compelling reasons therefore (New Civil and Maganda) When is a man a man and when is a
Code). woman a woman? In particular,does the law recognize the
changes made by a physician using scalpel,drugs and
counseling with regard to a person ’s sex? May a person
Kinds of Conflict Rules successfully petition for a change of name and sex
 One-sided rule – when Philippine internal law will appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a
apply. sex reassignment surgery?

Art 15, CC: Facts: On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first
status, condition and legal capacity of persons name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila,
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even Branch 8,alleging that he is a male transsexual, that is,
though living abroad. “anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female ”
and that he had always identified himself with girls since
 All-sided rule –when foreign law will apply. childhood. Feeling trapped in a man ’s body, he consulted
several doctors in the United States. He underwent
Art 16, CC: psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast
Real property as well as personal property is augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a
subject to the law of the country where it is “woman ” culminated on January 27,2001 when he
stipulated. underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok,
However, intestate and testamentary Thailand. From then on,petitioner lived as a female and
successions, both with respect to the order of was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to
succession and to the amount of successional have his name in his birth certificate changed from
rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary “Rommel Jacinto ” to “Mely,” and his sex from “male ” to
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law “female.”
of the person whose succession is under On June 4,2003, the trial court rendered a decision in
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the favor of petitioner, stating that granting the petition would
property and regardless of the country wherein be more in consonance with the principles of justice and
said property may be found. equity; that with his sexual re- assignment, petitioner, who
has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now
Composition of Conflict Rules possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner’s
Factual situation - set of facts presenting a conflicts misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own
problem. Ex. Capacity to succeed doing and should not be in any way taken against him.
Likewise, the court believes that no harm, injury or
Point of contract – law of the country with which the prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in
factual situation is most ultimately connected. Ex. Law of granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the petition
the nation of the decedent would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of
the petitioner and her fiancé and the realization of their
Status and Capacity dreams.

Silverio vs. Republic On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines
(Republic), thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in

5
the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is no law
allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the
reason of sex alteration. On February 23,2006, the Court correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent
of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic, Cagandahan
and set aside the decision of the trial court. Hence, this
petition. HELD:
Petition DENIED.
Issue: Whether or not the change of petitioner ’s name In deciding this case, the Court considers the
and sex in his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees
to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of intersex as variations which should not be subject to
of Court and RA outright denial. “It has been suggested that there is some
9048. middle ground between the sexes, a ‘no-man’s land’ for
those individuals who are neither truly ‘male’ nor truly
Held: No, RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first ‘female’.”The current state of Philippine statutes
name on the ground of sex reassignment. Under the said apparently compels that a person be classified either as a
law, a petition for change of first name or nickname may male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by
be allowed in any of the following cases: mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally
1. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to negates such rigid classification.
be ridiculous tainted with dishonor or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce; The Court is of the view that where the person is
2. The new first name or nickname has been biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in
habitually and continuously used by the petitioner his gender classification would be what the individual, like
and has been publicly known by that first name Cagandahan, having reached the age of majority, with
or nickname in the community; good reason thinks of his/her sex. Cagandahan here
3. Or the change will avoid confusion. thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body
produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there
Before a person can legally change his given name, he is preponderant biological support for considering him as
must present proper or reasonable cause or any being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex
compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he persons makes the gender classification at birth
must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such
and official name. persons, like Cagandahan, is fixed.

Republic vs. Cagandahan Respondent Cagandahan here has simply let nature take
565 SCRA 72 its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or
interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he
Facts: Respondent Jennifer B. Cagandahan was has already ordered his life to that of a male. He could
registered as a female in her Certificate of Live Birth. In have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking
her early years, she suffered from clitoral hypertrophy and lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical
was found out that her ovarian structures had minimized. mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so.
Respondent Cagandahan also alleged that she has no Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent
breasts or menstrual development. Consequently, she Cagandahan’s development to reveal more fully his male
was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia characteristics.
(CAH)a condition where persons thus afflicted possess
secondary male characteristics because of too much In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not
secretion of male hormones (androgen).She then alleged dictate on Cagandahan concerning a matter so innately
that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much
and emotion, she has become a male person. less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to
reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court will not
Thus, she filed with the Regional Trial Court of Laguna a consider Cagandahan as having erred in not choosing to
Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate such undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a
that her gender or sex be changed from female to male female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo
and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff. The treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of
trial court granted the petition. Hence, this instant petition a female, as society commonly currently knows this
for review. gender of the human species. Cagandahan is the one who

6
has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the Theories of Personal Law
human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Nationality Theory - by virtue of which the status and
Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what capacity of an individual are generally governed by the law
courses of action to take along the path of his sexual of his nationality. This is principally adopted in the RP.
development and maturation. In the absence of evidence
that respondent is an “incompetent “and in the absence of Domiciliary Theory - in general, the status, condition,
evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male rights, obligations, & capacity of a person should be
will harm other members of society who are equally governed by the law of his domicile.
entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as
valid and justified the respondent Cagandahan’s position Situs Theory - law of the place where property is situated;
and his personal judgment of being a male. the general rule is that real property is governed by the
law of the State where it is situated.
In so ruling the Court do no more than give respect to (1)
the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals Nationality and Citizenship
with what nature has handed out. In other words, the Nationality – membership in an ethnic, social, racial and
Court respects Cagandahan’s congenital condition and his cultural group.
mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for Citizenship – membership in a political society.
the ordinary person. The Court cannot but respect how
respondent Cagandahan deals with his unordinary state Citizens of the Philippines
and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique IN RP: 1987 CONSTI: ARTICLE 4: WHO ARE FILIPINO
circumstances in this case CITIZENS?
1. Citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the
Characteristics of Status 1987 Constitution (ratification on Feb 2, 1987; effective
1. Status is conferred principally by the state not by Feb 11?)
the individual. 2. Fathers and mothers are Filipino citizens
2. Status is a matter or public or social interest. 3. Born before January 17, 1973 + Filipino mothers + elect
3. Status being a concept of social order cannot Philippine Citizenship upon reaching age of majority
easily be terminated at the mere will or desire of 4. Naturalized according to law
the parties concerned. *note: #s 1-3 are considered NATURAL-BORN Citizens
4. Status is generally supposed to have a universal 1. NATURAL BORN CITI ZENS
character: when a certain status is created by law -those who are citizens of a particular state w/o having to
of one country, it is GENERALLY judicially perform any act to acquire or perfect citizenship
recognized all over the world.
Jus soli principle Jus sanguinis principle
Kinds of Capacity Looks to the law of the Rule of descent or blood
Capacity to act – (active) power to do acts with legal place of one's birth
effects.
Juridical capacity – (passive) fitness to be the subject of You're a citizen of the place Your citizenship depends on
legal relations. of your birth your parents
Followed in common law Followed in the Philippines
countries
JURIDICAL CAPACITY CAPACITY TO ACT
*most of the cases involved are with regards elections
fitness to be subject of legal Power to do acts with legal because elective public officials from the President down
relations (PASSIVE) effects (ACTIVE) to Governor are required to be natural-born citizens
Inherent in every natural acquired TALAROC V. UY: JUS SOLI APPLIED BEFORE
person 1935 CONSTI
Lost only through death May be lost -Uy was born of Chinese father but of Filipino mother in
RP. His nationality was contested for election purposes.
Court held that Uy was a Filipino citizen by virtue of being
Personal Law is the law that attaches to an individual born in the Philippines, and the adoption of the Jus
wherever he may go. Sanguinis principle did not effect the exclusion of
those who were already considered citizens. Besides, he

7
already exercised rights which are only attributable to And CIVICS are taught or prescribed as
Filipino citizens. part of the school curriculum
…during the entire period of the residence required of him
CO V. HRET: CHILDREN OF FILIPINO MOTHERS (not less than 10 years)
NEED NOT ELECT FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP IF …PRIOR TO HEARING of his PETITION for naturalization
THEY HAD ALREADY ACQUIRED NATIONALITY as citizen
WHEN FATHER NATURALIZED
-Ong’s nationality contested, his father being Chinese. MORE DISCUSSION:
Court held that since father was already naturalized before *On 10 yr-continuous residence requirement
he attained age of majority, he doesn’t have to elect Ratio: enable government to
citizenship. *observe applicant's conduct
*ensure that applicant has imbibed the principles
TECSON V. COMELEC: CONSTITUTION DOES and spirit of our Consti
NOT QUALIFY CHILDREN TO LEGITIMATE OR When reduced to 5 years: Applicant… (Section 3, CA
ILLEGITIMATE 473)
-FPJ alleged to have followed nationality of mom. Since 1. honorably held office under Gov't
he was allegedly born before parents were married, he 2. Established a new industry or introduced a
was deemed an illegitimate child. Court held that the useful invention in RP
Constitution does not qualify children to legitimate or 3. Married to a Filipino woman
illegitimate, as long as the child’s father is Filipino, then he 4. Engaged as a teacher (public or private - but
acquires citizenship of father which is Filipino not int'l school) for 2 years
2. CITIZENS BY NATURALIZATION (note however YEE V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
NATURALIZATION SCHOOLS, 7 SCRA 832: only Filipino citizens can be
-confers to an alien a nationality public school teachers)
after birth 5. Born in RP
by any of the means provided by law (in RP: CA 473 as
amended) *On CHARACTER
-requires:
QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPLICANTS OF +Good Moral character
NATURALIZATION +conducted self in a PROPER +
1. AGE: Not less than 21 on date of HEARING the petition IRREPROACHABLE manner
(so could file while 20 y.o.) Proper and Irreproachable conduct
2. RESIDENCE: resided in RP + Continuously + not less -higher standard of morality than good moral character
than 10 years prior to application -moral character of the highest degree, not enough to be a
3. Good moral character law-abiding citizen (Dy Lam Go vs. Republic)
Believes in the principles underlying the Philippine -EVIDENCE: testimony of 2 character witnesses
Consitution >well known in the community and enjoy such a high
Must have conducted himself in a proper and reputation for probity (honesty/integrity), their word may be
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his taken on its face value
residence in RP in his relations w/ the constituted >can't be employees of the petitioner
government + community in which he is living >must have known applicant for the period prescribed by
4. ECON: Own real estate + in RP + worth NOT LESS law
THAN p5K >had opportunity to observe him personally
+ must have some lucrative trade/profession/lawful >can attest to the possession of the applicant of the
occupation qualifications - e.g. proper and irreproachable conduct
5. LANGUAGE: able to SPEAK & WRITE during the entire period of residence
English/Spanish/any one of the principal Philippine -on consti requirement: not merely recitation BUT BELIEF!
languages
6. CHILDREN & SCHOOL: enrolled minor children of *ON ECONOMIC REQUIREMENT
school age >REAL ESTATE worth P5k (min)
…in any PUBLIC or PRIVATE SCHOOL recognized by >lucrative trade, profession, lawful occupation
the Bureau of Private Schools
…where PHILIPPINE HISTORY YU KIAN CHIE VS. REPUBLIC: PROOF OF
GOVERNMENT\ LUCRATIVE TRADE

8
-Chinese citizen applying for naturalization was held not -insufficient finances not an excuse for failing to comply
qualified because he failed to sufficiently prove lucrative with this requirement
trade, he having only a small fixed income and the rest of -initial failure to comply with this requirement is a BAR TO
the amounts he allegedly received were all depended on SUBSEQUENT PETITION even if during 2nd petition,
the profits made by the corporation. child no longer of school age (meaning, nakapag-aral na
sa ibang school not under the law)
(econ requirement continued) -not allowed if predominantly composed of children of a
Lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation specific race (e.g. Chiang Kai Shek mostly caters Chinese
-substantial gainful employment or the obtaining of children)
tangible receipts
-appreciable margin of income over expenses in order to Tecson vs. COMELEC
provide for adequate support for himself and his family in Facts: On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe,
the event of sickness, unemployment or disability to work also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate
-his financial condition must be such as to permit him and of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic
the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort, of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang
in accordance with the prevailing standard of living, and Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the 2004 national elections. In his
consistently with the demands of human dignity, at this certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a
stage of our civilization natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to
-regard w/ caution if family business be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth
to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila.
Real estate requirement Victorino X. Fornier, (GR 161824) initiated, on 9 January
-at odds with Article XII, Section 7 of 1987 Consti: "Save in 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003) before the Commission on
cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to deny due
transferred or conveyed except to individuals qualified to course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the
acquire or hold lands of the public domain" thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born
GR: Aliens can't own lands Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his
X: parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe,
1. Intestate succession (Section 2, BP 185, effective was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a
1982): allowed natural-born citizen who had lost his Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a
Filipino citizenship to be a transferee of a private land for Spanish subject. Granting, Fornier asseverated, that Allan
residential purposes F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have
...as long as it did not exceed 1,000 m2 (urban) transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being
1 ha (rural) an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Fornier based the
Why intestate: if otherwise, it would allow aliens to allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on two assertions:
circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine (1) Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain
landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and,
2. In pari delicto: vendor (who knew that he was selling (2) even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F.
to an alien) cannot file suit to void sale to an alien (who Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of
cannot own land, and must have known it) FPJ. On 23 January 2004, the COMELEC dismissed SPA
3. Foreigner later naturalized as a Filipino: purpose of 04-003 for lack of merit. 3 days later, or on 26 January
prohibition is to prevent the patrimony of our nation for 2004, Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration. The
future generations of Filipinos; since vendee already a motion was denied on 6 February 2004 by the COMELEC
Filipino, end would not be frustrated en banc. On 10 February 2004, Fornier assailed the
decision of the COMELEC before the Supreme Court
*ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the
-not enough that applicant understands Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition likewise
prayed for a temporary restraining order, a writ of
*ON MINOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION preliminary injunction or any other resolution that would
REQUIREMENTS stay the finality and/or execution of the COMELEC
Ratio: for the children to learn and imbibe customs and resolutions. The other petitions, later consolidated with GR
traditions and ideals of Filipinos to prepare them for a life 161824, would include GR 161434 and GR 161634, both
of responsible and law abiding citizenship challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and
-should be complied with and proven asserting that, under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of

9
the 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had has been material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in
original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, must not only be
issue on the case. material, but also deliberate and willful. The petitions were
Issue: Whether FPJ was a natural born citizen, so as to dismissed.
be allowed to run for the offcie of the President of the
Philippines. Kilosbayan Foundation vs. Ermita
Held: Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution 526 SCRA 353
expresses that "No person may be elected President
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a Facts: Gregory was appointed by the President as
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years Associate Justice to the SC. His appointment was held in
of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the abeyance in view of the question relating to his
Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding citizenship. Petitioners claim that Ong is a Chinese citizen
such election." The term "natural-born citizens," is defined as indicated in his birth certificate. Ong maintained that he
to include "those who are citizens of the Philippines from is a natural born Filipino citizen and subsequently
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or obtained from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ a
perfect their Philippine citizenship." Herein, the date, certification and identification that he is a natural-born
month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August Filipino citizen.
1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution. Through
its history, four modes of acquiring citizenship - Issue: Is Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen?
naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis –
had been in vogue. Only two, i.e., jus soli and jus Held: No. The records of the Court show that Ong is a
sanguinis, could qualify a person to being a “natural-born” naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged subsequent
citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of
Customs (1912), did not last long. With the adoption of the Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision
1935 Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong of the trial court stating that Ong and his mother were
vs. Secretary of Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood naturalized with his father.
relationship would now become the primary basis of
citizenship by birth. Considering the reservations made by Valles vs. COMELEC
the parties on the veracity of some of the entries on the
birth certificate of FPJ and the marriage certificate of his Facts: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934
parents, the only conclusions that could be drawn with in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the
some degree of certainty from the documents would be spouses, Telesforo Ybasco (Filipino) and Theresa
that (1) The parents of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Marquez (Australian). In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she
Kelley; (2) FPJ was born to them on 20 August 1939; (3) left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines. In
Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each other 1952, she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino
on 16 September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. Poe citizen, at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila. Since
was Lorenzo Poe; and (5) At the time of his death on 11 then, she has continuously participated in the electoral
September 1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. The process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well.
marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, the She served as Provincial Board Member of the
birth certificate of FPJ, and the death certificate of Lorenzo Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. In 1992,
Pou are documents of public record in the custody of a she ran for and was elected governor of Davao Oriental.
public officer. The documents have been submitted in Her election was contested by her opponent, Gil Taojo,
evidence by both contending parties during the Jr., in a petition for quo warranto, alleging as ground
proceedings before the COMELEC. But while the totality therefor her alleged Australian citizenship. However,
of the evidence may not establish conclusively that FPJ is finding no sufficient proof that respondent had renounced
a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on her Philippine citizenship, the Comelec en banc dismissed
hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold the petition.
that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material In the 1995 local elections, Rosalind Lopez ran
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. Her
violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the opponent, Francisco Rabat, filed a petition for
Omnibus Election Code. Fornier has utterly failed to disqualification before the COMELEC, First Division,
substantiate his case before the Court, notwithstanding contesting her Filipino citizenship but the said petition was
the ample opportunity given to the parties to present their likewise dismissed by the COMELEC.
position and evidence, and to prove whether or not there

10
The citizenship of private respondent was once Among others, these laws defined who were
again raised as an issue when she ran for re-election as deemed to be citizens of the Philippine islands. The
governor of Davao Oriental in the May 11, 1998 elections. Philippine Bill of 1902 defined Philippine citizens as:
Her candidacy was questioned by the herein petitioner, SEC. 4 xxx all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands
Cirilo Valles. the COMELEC’s First Division came out with continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on
a Resolution dismissing the petition. the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-
The Commission on Elections ruled that private nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their
respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and
and therefore, qualified to run for a public office because held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such
(1) her father, Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino citizen, and entitled to the protection of the United States, except such
by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the
Filipino citizen under the 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the
she was married to a Filipino, thereby making her also a treaty of peace between the United States and Spain
Filipino citizen ipso jure under Sec 4 of CA 473; (3) and signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and
that, she renounced her Australian citizenship on January ninety-eight.
15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the
Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899
accordingly cancelled as certified to by the Australian and resided therein including their children are deemed to
Embassy in Manila; and (4) furthermore, there are the be Philippine citizens. Private respondent’s father,
COMELEC Resolutions, declaring her a Filipino citizen Telesforo Ybasco, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet,
duly qualified to run for the elective position of Davao Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true
Oriental governor. copy of an entry in the Registry of Births. Thus, under the
Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo
private respondent is an Australian citizen, placing Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue
reliance on the admitted facts that: (a) In 1988, private of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the time
respondent registered herself with the Bureau of of her birth, Telesforo’s daughter, herein private
Immigration as an Australian national and was issued respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of
Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695 dated the Philippines.
September 19, 1988; (b) On even date, she applied for the The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution
issuance of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for
and (c) She was issued Australian Passport No. H700888 the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, to wit:
on March 3, 1988. (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution.
Issue: WON Rosalind Lopez is a Filipino citizen and (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents
therefore qualified to run for public office who, before the adoption of this Constitution had been
elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
Held: Yes (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
Ratio: The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the citizenship.
nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which
which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship, was
place of birth. Rosalind Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987
in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent,
spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been
Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in
Australian. Historically, this was a year before the 1935 Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine
Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli,
as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian
organic acts by which the United States governed the citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.
country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 Petitioner also contends that even on the
and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also assumption that the private respondent is a Filipino
known as the Jones Law. citizen, she has nonetheless renounced her Philippine

11
citizenship. To buttress this contention, petitioner cited Mercado vs. Manzano, were mere acts of assertion of her
private respondent’s application for an Alien Certificate of Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the
Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of same. Thus, at the most, private respondent had dual
Residence (ICR), on September 19, 1988, and the citizenship - she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well.
issuance to her of an Australian passport on March 3, Moreover, under Commonwealth Act 63, the fact
1988. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, a Filipino citizen that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another country
may lose his citizenship: has not been included as a ground for losing one’s
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country; Philippine citizenship. Since private respondent did not
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship; lose or renounce her Philippine citizenship, petitioner’s
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the claim that respondent must go through the process of
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining repatriation does not hold water.
twenty-one years of age or more; Petitioner also maintains that even on the
(4) By accepting commission in the military, naval or air assumption that the private respondent had dual
service of a foreign country; citizenship, still, she is disqualified to run for governor of
(5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization; Davao Oriental; citing Section 40 of Republic Act 7160
(6) By having been declared by competent authority, a otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, In the case of Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court clarified
unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has “dual citizenship” as used in the Local Government Code
been granted: and and reconciled the same with Article IV, Section 5 of the
(7) In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing
if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country, situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without
she acquires his nationality. performing any act, and as an involuntary consequence of
In order that citizenship may be lost by the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen
renunciation, such renunciation must be express. of another state, the Court explained that dual citizenship
Petitioner’s contention that the application of private as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual
respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her allegiance.
Australian passport, is bereft of merit. This issue was put Thus, the fact that the private respondent had
to rest in the case of Aznar vs. COMELEC and in the more dual citizenship did not automatically disqualify her from
recent case of Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC. In running for a public office. Furthermore, it was ruled that
the case of Aznar, the Court ruled that the mere fact that for candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they
respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their
that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as
Filipino, and that an application for an alien certificate of persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of
registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship,
Philippine citizenship. And, in Mercado vs. Manzano and effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen.
COMELEC, it was held that the fact that respondent This is so because in the certificate of candidacy, one
Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines
an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such
before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of declaration, which is under oath, operates as an effective
Makati, were just assertions of his American nationality renunciation of foreign citizenship. Therefore, when the
before the termination of his American citizenship. herein private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy
Thus, the mere fact that Rosalind Lopez was a in 1992, such fact alone terminated her Australian
holder of an Australian passport and had an alien citizenship.
certificate of registration are not acts constituting an Then, too, it is significant to note that on January
effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate 15 1992, private respondent executed a Declaration of
against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation Renunciation of Australian Citizenship, duly registered in
to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of
must be express. As held by this court in the case of Australia on May 12, 1992. And, as a result, on February
Aznar, an application for an alien certificate of registration 11, 1992, the Australian passport of private respondent
does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation was cancelled, as certified to by Second Secretary
of one’s citizenship. The application of the herein private Richard F. Munro of the Embassy of Australia in Manila.
respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her As aptly appreciated by the COMELEC, the aforesaid acts
holding of an Australian passport, as in the case of were enough to settle the issue of the alleged dual

12
citizenship of Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. Since her registration with the Bureau of Immigration. The Solicitor
renunciation was effective, petitioner’s claim that private General opposed such petition and moved that the petition
respondent must go through the whole process of be dismissed because: (1) there was no procedure under
repatriation holds no water. the law that can judicially declare citizenship to a particular
Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship person; and (2) fatal defects in the petition. After trial, Zita
is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative was declared a Filipino citizen, primarily because she was
proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is married to a Filipino citizen.
generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent Held: The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower
proceeding challenging the same; citing the case of Moy court and held that Zita was not a citizen of the
Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration. He insists Philippines. It had the same ratiocination as those of its
that the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out previous rulings, i.e. that the Philippine citizenship of the
anew. husband does not ipso facto grant Philippine citizenship to
Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is the alien wife. “Indeed, the political privilege of
concerned, i.e. the principle of res judicata generally does citizenship should not be handed out blindly to any alien
not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. woman on the sole basis of her marriage to a Filipino—
However, in the case of Burca vs. Republic, an exception ‘irrespective of moral character, ideological beliefs, and
to this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in identification with Filipino ideals, customs and
that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may traditions.’” [Emphasis supplied.] Thus, if an alien wife of a
be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be Filipino wishes to acquire Philippine citizenship, the
present: Supreme Court held that she herself must file a petition for
1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a citizenship or naturalization.
controversy where said person is a party;
2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative 1 Citizenship derived from that of another, as from a
took active part in the resolution thereof, and person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization.
3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
Although the general rule was set forth in the 2 If there is no valid repatriation, then he can be
case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the summarily deported for being an undocumented alien.
weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that
reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent Bengzon III vs. HRET (US Marines Corps, repatriation)
official findings, though not really binding, to make the
effort easier or simpler. Indeed, there appears sufficient Facts: Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the
basis to rely on the prior rulings of the Commission on Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on
Elections in SPA. No. 95-066 and EPC 92-54 which April 27, 1960, of Filipino parents. On November 5, 1985,
resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the herein respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine
private respondent. The evidence adduced by petitioner Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the United States.
is substantially the same evidence presented in these two As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship.
prior cases. Petitioner failed to show any new evidence or On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his
supervening event to warrant a reversal of such prior Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic
resolutions. However, the procedural issue Act No. 2630. He was elected as the Representative of
notwithstanding, considered on the merits, the petition the Second District of Pangasinan. He won over petitioner
cannot prosper. Antonio Bengson III, who was then running for reelection.
Petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with
Burca vs. Republic the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
January 30, 1967 claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to
become a member of the House of Representatives since
Facts: Zita Ngo was married to Florencio Burca, a Filipino he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article
citizen and a resident of Ormoc City. Prior to her marriage, VI, section 6 of the Constitution.
Zita was a Chinese citizen. The record showed, however, On March 2, 2000, the HRET rendered its decision
that she was born in Gigaquit, Surigao, and was a holder dismissing the petition for quo warranto and declaring
of Native Born Certificate of Residence No. 46333. She Cruz the duly elected Representative of the Second
filed a petition declaring herself as possessing all the District of Pangasinan. The HRET likewise denied
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, and
sought the cancellation of her alien certification of

13
Issue: Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Nov 1998: Ching submitted certification that he is CPA,
Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be Voter Cert from COMELEC, and Cert as a member of the
considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union also from
Philippine citizenship. COMELEC.
April 1999: results of Bar Exams were released and Ching
Ruling: The petition is without merit. passed. He was further required to submit more proof of
citizenship.
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may July 1999: Ching filed Manifestation w/ Affidavit of Election
however reacquire the same in the manner provided by of Phil Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance.
law. Commonwealth Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates OSG commented that Ching being the “legitimate child of
the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be a Chinese father and a Filipino mother and born under the
reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by 1935 Consti was a Chinese citizen and continued to be
repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress. so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those Phil citizenship. If Ching formally elects Phil citizenship, it
who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the would already be beyond the reasonable time allowed by
armed forces; services in the armed forces of the allied present jurisprudence.
forces in World War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of Two conditions of an effective election of Phil citizenship
the United States at any other time, (4) marriage of a (from OSG):
Filipino woman to an alien; and (5) political economic 1st – the mother of the person making the election must
necessity. be a Phil citizen
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original 2nd – election must be made upon reaching the age of
nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost majority (w/c means a reasonable time interpreted by the
his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a Sec of Justice as 3 yrs, from the Velayo case, and may be
naturalized Filipino citizen. If he was originally a natural- extended up to 7 yrs, from the Cuenco case
born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will Issues:
be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. 1)WON Ching has elected Phil citizenship w/in a
In respondent Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship reasonable time
when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of the 2)If affirmative, WON his citizenship has retroacted to the
United States. However, he subsequently reacquired time he took the bar.
Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 2630. Held: Court denies Vicente D Ching’s application for
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the admission to the Philippine Bar(ouch!)
Republic and having registered the same in the Civil
Registry respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered Ratio: 1& 2) No, Ching’s election was clearly beyond, by
his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which any reasonable yardstick, the allowable pd w/in which to
he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears exercise the privilege. Being born in April 1964, he was
stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, already 35 yrs old when he complied w/ the requirements
or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine of C.A. No 625 in June ’99. He was already more then 14
citizenship. yrs over the age of majority.
Although the Court is sympathetic of his plight, controlling
statues and jurisprudence compel the Court in its decision.
RE Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar Also, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his
(Ching) election of Phil citizenship, the latter not being a tedious
In re Ching, Bar Matter No. 914 and painstaking process.
Petition for Admission to the Phil Bar. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a
Facts: April 1964: Vicente D Ching born as the legitimate commodity that can be claimed when needed and
son of sps Tat Ching, Chinese citizen, and Prescila Dulay, suppressed when convenient. It should be availed of with
Filipina, in La Union.Since birth, Ching has resided in the fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude
Phils
July 1998: Ching, after graduating from St. Louis Djumantan vs. Domingo (Marriage)
University in Baguio City, filed an application to take the Facts: Filipino married an alien woman in Indonesia. The
’98 Bar Examinations. Filipino husband and Indonesian wife wanted to fix
Sept 1998: Court allowed Ching to take the exams domicile in RP. Indonesian wife is to be deported after
provided he must submit proof of his Phil citizenship expiration of her extended stay here as an alien.

14
Held: The civil status of an alien applicant as a temporary Yet, by being born to Filipino parents, Manzano natural
visitor is a matter that could influence the exercise of born Filipino citizen, by operation of the 1935 Philippine
discretion on the part of the immigration authorities. Any Constitution and laws under principle jus sanguinis (the
misrepresentation made in securing entry into the country right of blood).
and the change of immigration status from temporary
visitor to permanent resident is a blatant abuse of Although he is registered as an alien with the Philippine
immigration laws. Bureau of Immigration and holds and American passport,
Generally, the right of the president to expel or deport he has not lost his Filipino citizenship since he has not
aliens whose presence is deemed inimical to public renounced it and has not taken an oath of allegiance to
interest is as absolute and unqualified as the right to the USA.
prohibit and prevent their entry into the country. • Manzano, after the age of majority, registered himself as
Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino citizen does not a voter and voted in the 1992, 1995, and 1998 Philippine
ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse elections which effectively renounced his US citizenship
her from her failure to depart from the country upon the under American law. Under Philippine law, he no longer
expiration of her extended stay here as alien. had US citizenship.
Under Sec 13 of the Immigration Act, an alien allowed to Private respondent Manzano was then proclaimed as
stay temporarily may apply for a change of status and vice-mayor of Makati City.
entry or at any place other than a designated port of entry Issue: WON Manzano was no longer a US citizen.
is subject to deportation. The deportation of an alien under
said clause has a prescriptive period and shall not be Held: nvoking the maxim dura lex sed lex, petitioner
affected unless the deportation proceedings are made contends that through Sec.40(d) of the Local Government
within 5 years after the cause for deportation arises. Code (which declares as “disqualified from running for
elective local position… Those
Mercado vs. Manzano (Edu Manzano) with dual-citizenship”), Congress has “command[ed] in
FACTS: explicit terms the ineligibility of persons possessing dual
This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the allegiance to hold elective office.”
resolution of the COMELEC en banc and to declare
Manzano disqualified to hold the office of vice-mayor of Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Dual
Makati City. citizenship is involuntary; it arises out of circumstances of
Important details on Edu Manzano: born September 4, birth or marriage, where a person is recognized to be a
1955 in San Francisco, California, USA to Filipino parents. national by two or more states. Dual allegiance is a result
On the May 11, 1998 elections for vice-mayoralty of of a person’s volition; it is a situation wherein a
Makati City, 3 candidates competed for the person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty
post: Eduardo B. Manzano, Ernesto S. Mercado, and to two or more states. Dual citizenship is an issue
Gabriel V. Daza III. Manzano won the elections but his because a person who has this raises a question of which
proclamation was suspended due to a pending petition for state’s law must apply to him/her, therefore posting a
disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril threat to a country’s sovereignty. In Sec.5 Article IV of the
alleging that Manzano was an American citizen. On May Constitution on Citizenship, the concern was not with dual
7, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC citizenship per se, but
cancelled the certificate of candidacy of Manzano on the with naturalized citizens who maintain allegiance to their
grounds of his dual-citizenship, which disqualifies countries of origin even after naturalization. Hence, “dual
him according to Sec.40(d) of the Local Government citizenship” in the aforementioned disqualification clause
Code. Manzano filed a motion for reconsideration. must mean “dual allegiance”. Therefore, persons with
Mercado sought to intervene in the case for mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.
disqualification. Manzano opposed the motion to
intervene. The motion was unresolved. But on August 31, It should suffice that upon filing of certificates for
1998, the COMELEC en banc (with 1 commissioner candidacy, such persons with dual citizenships have
abstaining) reversed the Second Division’s ruling on the elected their Philippine citizenship to terminate their dual
cancellation of the certificate of candidacy and directing citizenship. In private respondent’s certificate of
the proclamation of Manzano as winner, saying: candidacy, he made these statements under oath on
•Manzano, being born in the USA, obtained US citizenship March 27, 1998: “I am a Filipino citizen…Natural-born”. “I
by operation of the US constitution and laws under am not a permanent resident of , or immigrant to , a
principle of jus soli (basis is place of birth). foreign country.” “I am eligible for the office I seek to be
elected. I will support and defend the Constitution of the

15
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto…” The filing of such certificate of candidacy 1st Issue: WON Ramon Labo, Jr. is a Filipino citizen and
sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively hence qualified to hold public office in the Philippines.
removing any disqualification he might have as a dual-
citizen. In Frivaldo v. COMELEC, it was held that “By laws Held: No. Labo is not a Filipino citizen. He had lost his
of the United States… Philippine citizenship by all three modes specified in the
Constitution: (1) naturalization in a foreign country, (2)
Frivaldo lost his American citizenship when he took his express renunciation of citizenship, and (3) subscribing to
oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government when he an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of
ran for Governor in 1988, in 1992, and in 1995. Every a foreign country. Labo’s naturalization in Australia did not
certificate of candidacy contains an oath of allegiance to confer him with dual citizenship. The Constitution explicitly
the Philippine Government.” Therefore, petitioner states that dual citizenship is inimical to national interest.
Mercado’s contention that the oath of allegiance contained The contention that his marriage to an Australian national
in private respondent’s certificate of candidacy is did not automatically divest him of Filipino citizenship is
insufficient to constitute his renunciation of his American irrelevant. There was no claim that Labo had automatically
citizenship. Also, equally without merit is his contention ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. Also, his
that, to be effective, such renunciation should have been Filipino citizenship has not been automatically restored
made upon reaching the age of majority since no law upon the annulment of his Australian citizenship, when his
requires the election of Philippine citizenship to be made marriage was declared void on the grounds of bigamy. He
upon majority age. has not reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of the
three methods prescribed in the Constitution: (1) direct act
Plus, the fact that Manzano admitted that he was of Congress, (2) naturalization, and (3) repatriation. The
registered as an American citizen with the Philippine earlier contrary decision by the COMELEC is totally
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and that he holds baseless, and is even alleged to have been politically
an American passport which he used for his last travel to motivated. It can also be reversed because the doctrine
the US dated April 22, 1997should not be such a big deal. of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship.
At the time of said travel, the use of an American passport Not being a Filipino citizen, Labo is ineligible to hold public
was simply an assertion of his American nationality before office in the Philippines.
the termination of his American citizenship. Admitting that
he was a registered alien does not mean that he is not still 2nd Issue: Whether Lardizabal can replace Labo if the
a Filipino (Aznar v. COMELEC). latter is ineligible to serve as Mayor.

Manzano’s oath of allegiance, together with the fact he Held: No. Despite getting the second highest number of
has spent his life here, received his education here, and votes, Lardizabal cannot assume the position of Mayor
practiced his profession here, and has taken part in past because he has not been duly elected by the people of
Philippine elections, leaves no doubt of his election of Baguio City. Being a second-placer, he clearly is not the
Philippine citizenship. choice of the people. Labo's disqualification alone does
not entitle him to take office. Instead, the elected Vice
Mayor shall replace Labo.
Labo vs. COMELEC (Australian Citizenship)
Facts: Ramon Labo, Jr. married an Australian citizen in RA 9225
the Philippines. He was granted Australian citizenship. His
marriage was later declared void for being bigamous. AASJS vs. Datumanong (Secretary of Justice)
Labo returned to the Philippines using an Australian
passport and obtained an Alien Certificate of Registration Facts: Petitioner filed this petition to prevent Justice
(ACR). He applied for a change in status from immigrant Secretary Datumanong from implementing R. A. 9225
to returning Filipino citizen, but was denied by the arguing that R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates
Commission on Immigration and Deportation since he has Sec. 5, Article VI of the Constitution which states that dual
not applied for reacquisition of his Filipino citizenship. allegiance of citizens is inimical to national interest and
Labo ran and won as Mayor of Baguio City. The second- shall be dealt with by law.
placer, Luis Lardizabal, filed a petition for quo warranto, Issue:Whether R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional and whether
alleging that Labo is disqualified rom holding public office the court jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual
on the grounds of alienage, and asking that the latter's allegiance.
proclamation as Mayor be annulled. Held:

16
R.A. 9225 is constitutional and that the Court has Ponencia was penned by J. Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez.
no jurisdiction yet to pass upon the issue of dual The case used the debates in the constitutional
allegiance. The court held that that the intent of the convention to determine the intent of the framers re
legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with Absentee Voting. Nine other justices gave their separate
the provision in Commonwealth Act No. 635 which takes opinions. This is held to be a momentous case because
away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who the core issue is the enfranchisement of some 7 million
become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. overseas Filipinos.
Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born
Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by FACTS:
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign  This is a case filed by petitioner Atty. Romulo
country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. Macalintal, as taxpayer, against COMELEC, Exec
By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the Sec Alberto Romulo and Hon. Emilia Boncodin, Sec
person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, of Dept of Budget and Mgmt. Petitioner, also a
from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the member of the Phil Bar, seeks a declaration that
problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of certain provisions of RA No 9189 suffer from
confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual constitutional infirmity. Such Act appropriates funds
allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What under its Sec 29 to carry out the provisions and as
happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern taxpayer, petitioner Macalintal also seeks to restrain
of Rep. Act No. 9225. officials from wasting public funds through the
Moreover, Section 5, Article IV of the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute, w/c results
Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self- to a misapplication of funds.
executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the  RA No 9189, more commonly known as The
law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003, was enacted
No. 9225,the framers were not concerned with dual in lieu of Sec 2, Art V of the Consti. It provides
citizenship per se, but with th status of naturalized citizens Congress the system in w/c absentee voting should
who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin be done by qualified Filipinos abroad.
even after their naturalization.9 Congress was given a  Absentee voting- a relatively new concept, completely
mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters separable and distinct from the regular system of
of what really constitutes dualallegiance.10 Until this is voting. It is an exception to the customary and usual
done, it would be premature for the judicial department, manner of voting. Such right of absentee and
including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual disabled voters to cast their ballots at an election is
purely statutory. It is devised to accommodate those
RA 9139 engaged in military or civil life whose duties make it
Common Wealth Act No 473 impracticable for them to attend their polling places
Legislative Naturalization on the day of election.
 Overseas Absentee Voter- a citizen of the Phils, at
Domicile is that place where a person has certain least 18 yrs of age, who is qualified to register and
settled,fixed, legal relations because: vote under RA No 9189, not otherwise disqualified by
law, who is abroad on the day of the elections.
1. it is assigned to him by law at the MOMENT OF BIRTH  Absentee- not a resident. A person cannot be
(domicile of origin). simultaneously a resident and an absentee under
2. It is assigned to him by law AFTER BIRTH on account of normal conditions. However, an absentee remains
legal disability caused for instance by minority, insanity or attached to his residence in the Phils as residence is
marriage in the case of a woman (constructive domicile or considered synonymous to domicile.
domicile by operation of law).  Residence- a temporary/permanent place of abode;
3. he has a HOME there – that to which whenever. not a domicile. It implies factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical
RA 9189 presence of a person in a given area, community or
country.
Macalintal vs. COMELEC  Domicile- a fixed permanent residence to w/c, when
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court, Certiorari and absent, one has the intention of returning.
Prohibition (July 2003)
 Difference between residence & domicile- A person
can only have a single domicile but he may have
numerous places of residence. The essential
17
distinction is the intent to return or the intent to leave wherein Court held that a “green card” holder US
when the purpose for w/c the resident has taken up immigrant is deemed to have abandoned his domicile
his abode ends. and residence in the Phils.

ISSUES (Resolved in seriatim): However, OSG held that ruling in said case does not
1) WON Sec 5 of RA No 9189 allowing immigrants or hold water at present, and that the Court may have to
permanent residents to register as voters is violative discard that particular ruling.
of the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of Consti?
2) WON Sec 18.5 of RA w/c empowers COMELEC to Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for w/o it, the
proclaim all the winning candidates violates Sec 4 Art presumption of abandonment of Phil domicile shall
VI of Consti, w/c states that the Congress proclaim remain. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed
the winning candidates for Pres & VP? an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in
3) WON Congress, via the JCOC, can exercise certain the Phils and presumed not to have lost his domicile
powers over the COMELEC, w/o violating the latter’s by his physical absence from this country. Sec 5 of
independence under Sec 1 Art IX-A of the Consti? RA No 9189 does not only require the promise to
resume actual physical permanent residence in the
HELD: Petition partly granted. The ff portions (4) of RA Phils not later than 3 yrs after approval of registration
No 9189 are declared VOID for being unconstitutional: but it also requires the Filipino abroad, WON he is a
green card holder, a temporary visitor or even on
(a) The phrase in the 1st sentence of 1st par of Sec 17.1, business trip, must declare that he/she has not
to wit: subject to the approval of the Joint applied for citizenship in another country. Thus,
Congressional Oversight Committee; he/she must return to the Phils otherwise
(b) The portion of the last par of Sec 17.1, to wit: only consequences will be met accdg to RA No 9189.
upon review and approval of the JCOC;
(c) The 2nd sentence of par 1 of Sec 19, to wit: The IRR Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not
shall be submitted to the JCOC created by virtue of return after he has exercised his right to vote, the
this Act for prior approval; and Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the
(d) The 2nd sentence in par 2 of Sec 25, to wit: It shall law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found
review, revise, amend and approve the IRR impractical. However, it can be said that the
promulgated by the Commission. Congress itself was conscious of this probability and
provided for a deterrence w/c is that the Filipino who
RATIO: fails to return as promised stands to lose his right of
1) No. Sec 5 of RA No 9189 enumerates those who are suffrage. Accordingly, the votes he cast shall not be
disqualified voting under this Act. It disqualifies an invalidated because he was qualified to vote on the
immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized date of the elections.
as such in the host country. However, an exception is
provided i.e. unless he/she executes, upon Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets
registration, an affidavit prepared for the purpose by down plainly its whole meaning, the Court is
the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume prevented from making it mean what the Court
actual physical permanent residence in the Phils not pleases. In fine, considering that underlying intent of
later than 3 yrs from approval of registration. Such the Constitution, as is evident in its statutory
affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied construction and intent of the framers, w/c is to grant
for citizenship in another country. Failure to return Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad
shall be cause for the removal of the name of the the unquestionable right to exercise the right of
immigrant or permanent resident from the Natl suffrage (Sec 1 Art V), the Court finds that Sec 5 of
Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent RA No 9189 is not constitutionally defective.
disqualification to vote in absentia.
2) Yes, Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to
Petitioner claims this is violative of the residency usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it. The
requirement in Sec 1 Art V of the Consti w/c requires canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the
the voter must be a resident in the Phils for at least winning candidates for President and VP for the entire
one yr, and a resident in the place where he proposes nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its
to vote for at least 6 mos immediately preceding an duty and power under Sec 4 ART VII of the Consti.
election. He presents the ruling in Caasi v. CA

18
COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the winning Domicile could not be established as soon as the old
candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps. is abandoned even though the person has not yet
arrived at the new domicile.
3) No, by vesting itself w/ the powers to approve, review,  The burden of establishing a change in domicile is
amend and revise the Implementing Rules & upon the party who asserts it. It should not merely
Regulations for RA No 9189, Congress went beyond rely on a person’s declarations as to what he
the scope of its constitutional authority. Congress considers his home, residence or domicile.
trampled upon the constitutional mandate of  Therefore, the burden rests on an immigrant or a
independence of the COMELEC. Under such a permanent resident to prove that he has abandoned
situation, the Court is left w/ no option but to withdraw his foreign domicile and reestablished his domicile in
from its usual reticence (silence) in declaring a the Phils. Until the intent is fulfilled upon one’s return
provision of law unconstitutional. to the Phils, he continues to be a domiciliary of
Unlike the first 2 issues where it remained silent, this another country and cannot be considered a qualified
is the sole issue reacted to by COMELEC. voter. Physical presence is not a mere test of intent
but the Principal confirming evidence of the intention
Bellosillo, J., Concurring Opinion: of the person.
 Opined his views on WON Sec 5 of RA NO 9189 is  Extent of exercise of Congress of its oversight powers
violative of the residency requirement. in the implementation of RA No 9189:
 Actual and physical residence abroad should not ipso  Power of oversight: embraces all activities undertaken
jure result or automatically be equated w/ by Congress to enhance its understanding of and
abandonment of Phil domicile. The values of animus influence over the implementation of legislation it has
manendi (intent to remain) and animus revertendi enacted. It is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power
(intent to return) must not be brushed off in itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent
determining WON immigrants and permanent in a democratic system of govt.
residents should be denied of their right to vote.  Categories: congressional scrutiny (determine
 Domicile is a question of intention and circumstances. economy & efficiency of operation of govt activities),
3 rules to be considered: congressional investigation (inherent power w/c
1) a man must have a residence/domicile somewhere; involves a more intense digging of facts), legislative
2) domicile is not easily lost, once established it is supervision (most encompassing; allows Congress to
retained until a new one is acquired; and supervise over executive agencies through its veto
3) a man can have but 1 residence/domicile at a time. power).
 COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial powers but it is
Puno, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: not part of the judiciary. The Court has no general
 Elements of domicile: power of supervision over it except those specifically
 Fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place granted by the Consti. However, the COMELEC is
 Animus manendi: intention of returning there subject to congressional scrutiny especially during
permanently budget hearings. Congress cannot abolish it as it can
 The mere absence of an individual from his other agencies under the executive branch.
permanent residence w/o the intention to abandon it COMELEC is not a mere creature of the legislature, it
does not result in a loss or change of domicile. owe its origin from the Constitution.
 To successfully effect change in domicile, its actual
removal or change must be demonstrated. Vitug, J., Concurring Opinion:
 Where he concurs:  COMELEC’s power is limited only to proclaiming
 Congress could not have allowed COMELEC to Senators and Party-list Reps as winners. The
exercise a power exclusively bestowed upon it by the election returns for the positions of Pres & VP should
Consti in its constitutional duty to canvass and be certified by the Bd of Canvassers to Congress &
proclaim the winning candidates for Pres and VP not COMELEC.
 Congress should not have been given power over
IRR of COMELEC for the latter was granted the Panganiban, J., Concurring Opinion:
power to strengthen its independence. Hence, its  3 Requisites of Voters: citizenship, age and
exercise is beyond invasion by Congress. residence.
 Where he dissents:  Importance of residence: enables one to know the
 The affidavit merely proves the intent to return but not needs and the problems of the locality/area.
other requisites for reacquiring the domicile of origin.
19
 Nowadays, through e-age communication facilities, 5. The presumption is in favor of the continuance of
actual presence is no longer necessary to make Fils domicile. The burden of Proof is on the one who
abroad aware of the country’s conditions and the alleges that a change of domicile has taken
suitability of candidates for natl offices. place.

Ynares-Santiago, J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Romualdez, Marcos vs COMELEC


 Immigrant defined: a person who removes into a Facts: Roy Montejo questioned Marcos’ candidacy as
country for the purpose of permanent residence representative of the 1st district of Leyte on the ground that
 Dissent: Sec 5 of RA No 9189 grants the right of she is not a resident thereof as required by the
suffrage to a category of voters who do not possess Constitution. Montejo contended that Tacloban was
the constitutional requirement of residence and Marcos’ domicile of origin because she did not live there
therefore should be declared UNconstitutional. until she was eight (8) years old. Moreover, Marcos
Immigrants have voluntarily and unambiguously resided and used to be a registered voter in San Juan and
chosen actual, physical and permanent residence in a in Manila.
foreign country. Issue: Whether or not Mrs. Marcos meets the residency
 Concurs in the rest of the decisions on the given requirement to run as representative in Leyte
issues. Held: Yes. Marcos is domiciled in Tacloban, hence she
meets the Constitutional requirement on residency.
Sandoval-Gutierez, J., Concurring and Dissenting Residence and domicile are synonymous in election law.
Opinion: Mere absence of an individual from his/her permanent
 Since the Consti fixes qualifications of voters, such residence without the intention to abandon it does not
cannot be increased, diminished or changed by result in a loss or change of domicile. Also, when she
legislative enactment, unless the power to do so is married the former President Marcos in 1954, she kept her
expressly granted or necessarily implied. domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a
 Residency requirement aims to serve as an domicilium necessarium. The Supreme Court held that
invaluable protection against fraud and interference. even the matter of a common residence between the
It is not competent for Congress to diminish or alter husband and the wife during the marriage is not an iron-
such qualification. Thus, Sec 5 of RA No 9189 is clad principle. In cases applying the Civil Code on the
Unconstitutional. question of common matrimonial residence, our
jurisprudence has recognize certain situations where the
Callejo, Sr., J., Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: spouses could not be compelled to live with each other
 Sec 5 of RA No 9189 Unconstitutional insofar that such that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence
qualifications of voters set in Sec 1 Art V is clear and different from that of her husband or, for obviously
unambiguous. practical reasons, revert to her original domicile (apart
from being allowed to opt for a new one).
Carpio, J., Carpio-Morales, J., and Azcuna, J. Concur. In De La Vina v. Villareal, a married woman may
acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her
Rules on Domicile husband during the existence of the marriage when the
1. No natural person must ever be without a husband has given cause for divorce. The Supreme Court
domicile also allowed the wife to either obtain a new residence or
2. No person can have two or more domiciles at to choose a new domicile in such an event. In the
the same time, except for certain purposes, and instances where the wife actually opts, under the Civil
from different legal viewpoints Code, to live separately from her husband either by taking
3. Every sui juris may change his domicile new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin, the
4. Once acquired, it remains the domicile unless a wife could not be compelled to live with her husband on
new one is obtained: pain of contempt. In Arroyo v. Vazquez-Arroyo, the Court
a. By capacitated persons held that it is not within the province of the courts at this
b. With freedom of choice country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to
c. With actual physical presence cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to the other.
d. And Provable intent that it should be one’s
fixed and permanent place of abode, there Aquino vs. COMELEC
should be animus manendi (intent to remain) or
animus nonrevertendi (intent not to return). Facts: On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino filed his
Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative

20
for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City. In legal residence at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte,
his certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a caused the construction of his residential house therein.
resident of the aforementioned district for 10 months. He soon thereafter also served as a Barangay Captain of
Faced with a petition for disqualification, he amended the the place. In the 1984 Batasan Election and 1986 “snap”
entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 Presidential Election, Romualdez acted as the Campaign
year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections Manager of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in Leyte where
dismissed the petition on 6 May and allowed Aquino to run he voted.
in the election of 8 May. Aquino won. Acting on a motion When the People’s Power Revolution took place
for reconsideration of the above dismissal, the on 21-24 of February, 1986, some relatives and
Commission on Election later issued an order suspending associates of the deposed President, fearing for their
the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved personal safety, “fled” the country. Romualdez, for one,
the issue. On 2 June, the Commission on Elections found together with his immediate family, left the Philippines and
Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for sought “asylum” in the United States. While abroad, he
lack of constitutional qualification of residence. took special studies on the development of Leyte-Samar
and international business finance.
Issue: Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy In the early part of 1987, Romualdez attempted
actually connotes “domicile” to warrant the disqualification to come back to the Philippines to run for a congressional
of Aquino from the position in the electoral district. seat in Leyte. When Romualdez arrived in the Philippines,
he did not delay his return to his residence at Malbog.
Held: The place “where a party actually or During the registration of voters conducted by COMELEC
constructively has his permanent home,” where he, no for the Synchronized National and Local Election
matter where he may be found at any given time, scheduled for 11 May 1992, Romualdez registered himself
eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, anew as a voter at Precinct No. 9 of Malbog. The
is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors, who had
residence for the purposes of election law. The purpose is known Romualdez to be a resident of the place and, in
to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the fact, an elected Barangay Chairman of Malbog in 1982,
conditions and needs of the community from taking allowed him to be registered.
advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that Donato Advincula filed a petition for exclusion
community for electoral gain. Aquino’s certificate of with the MTC of Tolosa, Leyte. He alleged that Romualdez
candidacy in a previous (1992) election indicates that he was a resident of U.S.A.; that he had just recently arrived
was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose, in the Philippines; and that he did not have the required
Concepcion, Tarlac for more than 52 years prior to that one-year residence in the Philippines and the six-month
election. Aquino’s connection to the Second District of residence in Tolosa to qualify him to register as a voter in
Makati City is an alleged lease agreement of a Barangay Malbog. Romualdez contended that he has
condominium unit in the area. The intention not to been a resident of Tolosa since the early 1980’s, and that
establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in he has not abandoned his said residence by his physical
his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. The absence therefrom during the period from 1986 up to
short length of time he claims to be a resident of Makati 1991. MTC dismissed the petition but on appeal to RTC,
(and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims the same reversed the MTC.
of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole
purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to Issue:
acquire a new, residence or domicile but only to qualify as Whether or not Romualdez has voluntarily left the
a candidate for Representative of the Second District of country and abandoned his residence in Tolosa, Leyte
Makati City. Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the and, therefore may not register as a voter.
Commission on Elections.
Held:
No. The term “residence” as used in the election
Romualdez vs. RTC Tacloban law is synonymous with “domicile”, which imports not only
Romualdez v. RTC of Tacloban an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
Facts: such intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent
Philip Romualdez, is a natural born citizen of the residence to which when absent for business or pleasure,
Philippines. Sometime in the early part of 1980, the or for like reasons, one intends to return. That residence,
petitioner, in consonance with his decision to establish his in the case of the petitioner, was established during the

21
early 1980’s to be at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by
Residence thus acquired, however, may be lost by the Philippine law.
adopting another choice of domicile. In order, in turn, to
acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur: (1) Domestic Adoption Act of 1998
residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an Inter Country Adoption Law, RA 8043
intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon Annulment, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
the old domicile. In other words, there must basically be
animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The Zamora vs. CA
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be Facts: The respondent preferred to spend more time with
for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence his friends than his family on whom he squandered his
must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen money, depended on his parents for aid and assistance,
for the new domicile must be actual. and was dishonest to his wife regarding his finances, and
The political situation brought about by the lived with a mistress with whom he has a child. Roridel
“People’s Power Revolution” must have truly caused great filed a case for the declaration of nullity of their marriage
apprehension to the Romualdezes, as well as a serious by virtue of her husband’s psychological incapacity.
concern over the safety and welfare of the members of
their immediate families. Their going into self-exile until Issue: Whether or not Reynaldo is psychologically
conditions favorable to them would have somehow incapacitated to perform his marital obligations to
stabilized is understandable. Certainly, their sudden private respondent, thus a valid ground to render the
departure from the country cannot be described as marriage void.
“voluntary”, or as “abandonment of residence” at least in Held: NO. Marriage is valid.
the context that these terms are used in applying the They seem to have a difficulty or outright refusal or
concept of “domicile by choice.” neglect in performing their obligations. They’re not
No evidence on record that Romualdez incapable of doing them.
voluntarily abandoned his residence and established his Failure of their expectations is not tantamount to
domicile to somewhere else. psychological incapacity. Mere showing of “irreconcilable
differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise
constitutes psychological
Renvoi incapacity.
A procedure whereby a legal matter is referred by the SC enumerated the guidelines in invoking the
conflict of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state, the psychological incapacity under Article 36:
conflict of laws rule of which, in turn refers the matter back 1. the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
to the law of the forum (remission) or a third state belong to the plaintiff
(transmission). 2. the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be:
a. medically or clinically identified
Bellis vs. Bellis b. alleged in the complaint
Facts: Amos G. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas c. sufficiently proven by experts and
at the time of his death. Before he died, he made two wills, d. clearly explained in the decision
one disposing his Texas properties, the other disposing 3. the incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time
his Philippine properties. In both wills, the recognized of the celebration of the marriage
illegitimate children were not given any share. Texas has 4. Psychological Incapacity must be shown to be
no conflict rule (Rule of Private International Law) medically or clinically permanent or incurable
governing successional rights. Furthermore, under Texas 5.Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
law, there are no compulsory heirs. disability of the party to assume the essential obligations
of marriage.
Issue: 6. the essential obligations must be those embodied by Art
Whether or not such illegitimate children of 69 to 71 (husband and wife) of FC as well as Art 220, 221
Bellis be entitled to successional rights. and 335 (parents and children)
7. interpretations given by the National Appellate
Held: Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
The said illegitimate children are not entitled to PI while not controlling or decisive, should be given great
their legitimes. Under Texas law, there are no legitimes. respect by our courts
Even if the other will was executed in the Philippines, his 8. the trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or
national law, still, will govern the properties for succession fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the

22
state. No decision shall be handed down unless the SC Facts: Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina
issues a certification. (last sent not anymore needed on 14 April 1985 in Manila, and gave birth to a son a year
pursuant to SC resolution A.M. No. 02-11-10 after. Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and
irresponsibility” on the early stages of the marriage,
Santos vs. CA observed from his tendency to spend time with his friends
and squandering his money with them, from his
Facts: Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia dependency from his parents, and his dishonesty on
Bedia on September 20, 1986. On May 18 1988, Julia left matters involving his finances. Reynaldo was relieved of
for the U.S. She did not communicate with Leouel and did his job in 1986, Roridel became the sole breadwinner
not return to the country. In 1991, Leoul filed with the RTC thereafter. In March 1987, Roridel resigned from her job in
of Negros Oriental, a complaint for voiding the marriage Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. Reynaldo left her
under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. The and their child a week later. The couple are separated-in-
RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the fact for more than three years.
dismissal.
On 16 August 1990, Roridel filed a verified petition for
Issue: Does the failure of Julia to return home, or at the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina.
very least to communicate with him, for more than five Evidence for Roridel consisted of her own testimony, that
years constitute psychological incapacity? of two of her friends, a social worker, and a psychiatrist of
the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center.
Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he appeared
Held: No, the failure of Julia to return home or to
communicate with her husband Leouel for more than five only during the pre-trial conference. On 14 May 1991, the
years does not constitute psychological incapacity. trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void.
The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in
Pyschological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
toto the RTC’s decision. Hence, the present recourse.
GRAVITY (b) JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE (c)
INCURABILITY. Issue: Whether opposing or conflicting personalities
should be construed as psychological incapacity
Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a
mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be Held: The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion the Civil
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that Code Revision Committee intended to liberalize the
concomitantly must be assumed and dischargedby the application of Philippine civil laws on personal and family
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed by Art. 68 rights, and holding psychological incapacity as a broad
of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live range of mental and behavioral conduct on the part of one
together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render spouse indicative of how he or she regards the marital
help and support. union, his or her personal relationship with the other
spouse, as well as his or her conduct in the long haul for
The intendment of the law has been to confine the the attainment of the principal objectives of marriage;
meaning of “PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY” to the mot where said conduct, observed and considered as a whole,
serious cases of personality disorders clearly tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or 23nability to give defeats the very objectives of marriage, warrants the
meaning and significance to the marriage. This dissolution of the marriage.
psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage
is celebrated. The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. Court of
Appeals, where psychological incapacity should refer to
Undeniably and understandably, Leouel stands aggrieved, no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity, existing at
even desperate, in his present situation. Regrettably, the time the marriage is celebrated, and that there is
neither law nor society itself can always provide all the hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been
specific answers to every individual problem to confine the meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly
PETITION IS DENIED. demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. Psychological
incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical
Republic vs. CA and Molina antecedence, and incurability. In the present case, there is
no clear showing to us that the psychological defect
23
spoken of is an incapacity; but appears to be more of a accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in
“difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the Australia.
performance of some marital obligations. Mere showing of
“irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” On March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for
in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the
ground of bigamy — respondent allegedly had a prior
The Court, in this case, promulgated the guidelines in the subsisting marriage at the time he married her on January
interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family 12, 1994. She claimed that she learned of respondent’s
Code, removing any visages of it being the most liberal marriage to Editha Samson only in November, 1997.
divorce procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof
belongs to the plaintiff; (2) the root cause of psychological In his Answer, respondent averred that, as far back as
incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and
alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by expert, and its subsequent dissolution. He contended that his first
clearly explained in the decision; (3) The incapacity must marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly
be proven existing at the time of the celebration of dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in
marriage; (4) the incapacity must be clinically or medically 1989; thus, he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner
permanent or incurable; (5) such illness must be grave in 1994.
enough; (6) the essential marital obligation must be
embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as On July 7, 1998 — or about five years after the couple’s
regards husband and wife, and Articles 220 to 225 of the
wedding and while the suit for the declaration of nullity
same code as regards parents and their children; (7) was pending — respondent was able to secure a divorce
interpretation made by the National Appellate Matrimonial
decree from a family court in Sydney, Australia because
Tribunal of the Catholic Church, and (8) the trial must the “marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down.”
order the fiscal and the Solicitor-General to appeal as
counsels for the State.
Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complaint be
The Supreme Court granted the petition, and reversed dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action.
and set aside the assailed decision; concluding that the The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with
marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists respondent. The court marked and admitted the
and remains valid. documentary evidence of both parties.[16] After they
submitted their respective memoranda, the case was
submitted for resolution.
Garcia-Recio vs. Recio
Thereafter, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision
Facts: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha and Order.
Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal, on
March 1, 1987. They lived together as husband and wife Issue: Did the Australian Divorce Decree sufficiently
in Australia. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce, established the respondent’s capacity to remarry?
purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an
Australian family court. Held: No. Divorce is of different types. There was no
showing what type of divorce was procured by the
On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian respondent. The divorce decree even contained a
citizen, as shown by a “Certificate of Australian restriction which bolstered the court’s contention that the
Citizenship” issued by the Australian government. divorce obtained by the respondent must have been
Petitioner — a Filipina — and respondent were married on limited.
January 12, 1994 in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in
Cabanatuan City. In their application for a marriage It is well settled that in our jurisdiction that our courts
license, respondent was declared as “single” and cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other
“Filipino.” facts, they must be alleged and proven. There being no
proof on the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained
Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and respondent under Australian law, the Court cannot conclude that the
lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their respondent was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on
marriage. While the two were still in Australia, their January 1994. Neither can the petitioners prayer to
conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996, in declare the marriage null and void be granted for it may

24
turn out that respondent was after all capacitated. Hence
this case is remanded to the trial court.

Perez vs. CA
Facts: Private respondent Tristan Catindig and Lily Gomez
obtained divorce decree in the Dominican Republic, 7
years after their marriage. Subsequently, he married
petitioner Elmar Perez in the US. During the cohabitation,
petitioner learned that the divorce decree obtained in the
Dominican Republic was not recognized in the Philippines.
In 2001, Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity
of his marriage to Lily.
Issue: Is the divorce decree valid?
Held: No. In the case of Tenchavez vs. Escano, it was
ruled that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens,
sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil
Code is not entitled to recognition as valid. In this
jurisdiction and neither is the marriage contracted with
another party by the divorced consort, subsequent to the
foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country.

25

You might also like