Tecson vs.

Commission on Elections [GR 151434, 3 March 2004]

Tecson vs. Commission on Elections Issue: Whether FPJ was a natural born citizen, so as to be allowed to run for the
[GR 151434, 3 March 2004] offcie of the President of the Philippines.

Facts: On 31 December 2003, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Held: Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses that "No person may
Poe, Jr. (FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
Republic of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
Party, in the 2004 national elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately
representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his preceding such election." The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any
August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Victorino X. Fornier, (GR 161824) act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship." Herein, the date, month and
initiated, on 9 January 2004, a petition (SPA 04-003) before the Commission on year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the regime of the 1935
Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his Constitution. Through its history, four modes of acquiring citizenship -
certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis – had been in vogue. Only
misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born two, i.e., jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to being a “natural-born”
Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of Customs (1912), did not
mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a last long. With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan
Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. Granting, Chong vs. Secretary of Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now
Fornier asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have become the primary basis of citizenship by birth. Considering the reservations made
transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of by the parties on the veracity of some of the entries on the birth certificate of FPJ
an alien mother. Fornier based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on two and the marriage certificate of his parents, the only conclusions that could be drawn
assertions: (1) Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez with some degree of certainty from the documents would be that (1) The parents of
before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, (2) even if no such prior marriage had FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley; (2) FPJ was born to them on 20 August
existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of FPJ. On 1939; (3) Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each other on 16
23 January 2004, the COMELEC dismissed SPA 04-003 for lack of merit. 3 days September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo Poe; and (5) At the
later, or on 26 January 2004, Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration. The time of his death on 11 September 1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. The
motion was denied on 6 February 2004 by the COMELEC en banc. On 10 marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth certificate of FPJ,
February 2004, Fornier assailed the decision of the COMELEC before the and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou are documents of public record in the
Supreme Court conformably with Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised custody of a public officer. The documents have been submitted in evidence by both
Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition likewise prayed for a temporary restraining contending parties during the proceedings before the COMELEC. But while the
order, a writ of preliminary injunction or any other resolution that would stay the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that FPJ is a natural-born
finality and/or execution of the COMELEC resolutions. The other petitions, later citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor
consolidated with GR 161824, would include GR 161434 and GR 161634, both enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material
challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under Article VII, misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation
Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. Fornier has utterly failed to
original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on the case. substantiate his case before the Court, notwithstanding the ample opportunity given
to the parties to present their position and evidence, and to prove whether or not In 2010, before assuming her post as appointes Chairperson of the MTRCB , she
there has been material misrepresentation, which, as so ruled in Romualdez- renounced her American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirements as to
Marcos vs. COMELEC, must not only be material, but also deliberate and willful. Reacquistion of Filipino Citizenship. From then on, she stopped using her American
The petitions were dismissed. passport.

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on the
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S POE- LLAMANZARES vs. ground particularly among others, that she cannot be considered a natural born
COMELEC,et al. Filipino citizen since she was a FOUNDLING and that her bioligical parents cannot
GR Nos. 221697 , GR No. 221698-700 be proved as Filipinos. The Comelec en banc cancelled her candidacy on the
ground that she is in want of citizenship and residence requirements and that she
March 8,2016 committed misrepresentation in her COC.

Perez, J.: On CERTIORARI, the SUPREME COURT, reversed the ruling and held a vote of
9-6 that POE is qualified as candidate for Presidency.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
In her COC for Presidency on the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe declared that she
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and that her residence up to day before (1) Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a natural- born Filipino citizen
May 9, 2016 would be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005.
(2) Whether or not Poe satisfies the 10-year residency requirement.
Grace Poe was born in 1968., found as newborn infant in Jaro,Iloilo and was legally
adopted by RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (FPJ) and JESUS SONORA POE HELD:
(SUSAN ROCES) in 1974. She immigrated to the US in 1991 after her marriage to
Theodore Llamanzares who was then based at the US. Grace Poe then became a YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born Filipino Citizen. For that, she
naturalized American citizen in 2001. satisfied the constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos may run for
Presidency.
On December 2004, he returned to the Philippines due to his father’s deteriorating
medical condition, who then eventually demice on February 3,2005. She then (1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being shown in her
quitted her job in the US to be with her grieving mother and finally went home for physical features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact that she was
good to the Philippines on MAY 24, 2005. found as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality wherein there is 99% probability that
residents there are Filipinos, consequently providing 99% chance that Poe’s
On JULY 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired bilogical parents are Filipinos. Said probability and circumstancial evidence are
her Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained a admissible under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules on Evidence.
new Philippine Passport.
(2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a class, natural born- citizens as
based on the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention, wherein though
its enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language either to Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was
definitely exclude the foundlings to be natural born citizens. erased by his naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in connection with his service
in the U.S. Marine Corps.
(3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as
to the country where they are being found, as covered and supported by the UN In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under RA
Convention Law. 2630 [(An Act Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who
Lost Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or Accepting Commission In, the
As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency because she Armed Forces of the United States (1960)]. He ran for and was elected as the
satisfied the requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to remain permanently) Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He won over
coupled with ANIMUS NON REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to US) in petitioner Bengson who was then running for reelection.
acquiring a new domicile in the Philippines. Starting May 24,2005, upon returning
to the Philippines, Grace Poe presented overwhelming evidence of her actual stay Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with
and intent to abandon permanently her domicile in the US, coupled with her respondent HRET claiming that Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the
eventual application to reacquire Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225. Hence, her HOR since he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, section 6 of
candidacy for Presidency was granted by the SC. the Constitution.
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto and declaring
Cruz the duly elected Representative in the said election.
BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ
G.R. No. 142840 ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can
May 7, 2001 still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship.
FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in this case, in view of the
constitutional requirement that “no person shall be a Member of the House of HELD: petition dismissed
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen.”
YES
Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of
Filipino parents. In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps and Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in
without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the manner provided by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which
the USA. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under CA No. 63 Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen:
[(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or
Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, 1. by naturalization,
among other, “rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of 2. by repatriation, and
a foreign country.” 3. by direct act of Congress.
**
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were
due to: candidates for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections.
Respondent was then declared the winning candidate; however its proclamation
1. desertion of the armed forces; was suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification filed by a certain
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II; Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that private respondent was not a citizen of the
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time, Philippines but of the United States.
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. political economic necessity In its resolution, dated May 7, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC granted
the petition of Mamaril and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This means that a of private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citizen and, Section 40(d) of
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a the Local Government Code provides that persons with dual citizenship are
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born disqualified from running for any elective position.
citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
status as a natural-born Filipino. Respondent admitted that he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of
Immigration under Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-31632 and alleged that he
R.A. No. 2630 provides: is a Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a Filipino father and a Filipino
Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, mother. He was born in the United States, San Francisco, California, on September
or accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after 14, 1955, and is considered an American citizen under US Laws. But
separation from the Armed Forces of the United States, acquired United States notwithstanding his registration as an American citizen, he did not lose his Filipino
citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to citizenship. From these facts, respondent is a dual citizen - both a Filipino and a US
the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil Registry in citizen.
the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of
allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship. ISSUE:

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having Whether or not Manzano is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor.
registered the same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance
with the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status HELD:
as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino
father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return The petition was dismissed. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The
to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of
two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said
states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are
Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state
which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Private respondent is considered as a dual
FACTS: citizen because he is born of Filipino parents but was born in San Francisco, USA.
Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently
considered a citizen of both states. Considering the citizenship clause under Article
IV of the Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the VALLES vs. COMELEC
Philippines to posses dual citizenship: G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000

(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow FACTS:
the principle of jus soli;
In 1992, private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez ran for and was elected
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws governor of Davao Oriental. Her election was contested by her opponent, Gil Taojo,
of their fathers’ country such children are citizens of that country; Jr., in a petition for quo warranto. However, finding no sufficient proof that
respondent had renounced her Philippine citizenship, the COMELEC en banc
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are dismissed the petition. When Lopez ran for re-election in 1995 elections, her
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have opponent, Francisco Rabat, filed a petition for disqualification, contesting her
renounced Philippine citizenship. Filipino citizenship but the said petition was likewise dismissed by the COMELEC.

Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person The citizenship of private respondent was once again raised as an issue when she
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental in the May 11, 1998 elections. Her
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual’s volition. candidacy was questioned by the petitioner Cirilo Valles.

By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private The COMELEC, however, dismissed the petition, ruling that Lopez is a Filipino
respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizen and therefore, qualified to run for a public office because (1) her father,
citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino citizen, and by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis
American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a she was a Filipino citizen under the 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) she was
dual citizen. married to a Filipino, thereby making her also a Filipino citizen ipso jure under
Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473; (3) and that, she renounced her Australian
By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic
a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was accordingly cancelled as
support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto certified to by the Australian Embassy in Manila; and (4) furthermore, there are the
and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as COMELEC Resolutions in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA Case No. 95-066, declaring her
the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American a Filipino citizen duly qualified to run for the elective position of Davao Oriental
citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. On the governor.
other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance to the Philippine, when
considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his Petitioner thus filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, maintaining
education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in that the Lopez is an Australian citizen, placing reliance on the admitted facts that:
this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. a) In 1988, private respondent registered herself with the Bureau of Immigration as
an Australian national and was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695
dated September 19, 1988; b) On even date, she applied for the issuance of an
Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), and c) She was issued Australian time of her birth, Telesforo’s daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco
Passport No. H700888 on March 3, 1988. Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.

The principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood

ISSUE: relationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen,
1. Whether respondent is a Filipino having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not
2. If she is, whether she renounced her citizenship by applying for ACR and ICR tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle
and being issued an Australian passport. of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship
3. Whether private respondent is disqualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.
under Section 40 of Republic Act 7160

2. No. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship:
HELD:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
1. Yes. The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis.
Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless (2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines
nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more;
Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier
Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino (4) By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country;
citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian.
Historically, this was a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization;
time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic
acts by which the United States governed the country. These were the Philippine (6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine
Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has
as the Jones Law. been granted: and

Under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and Jones Law, all inhabitants of the Philippines (7) In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in
who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their force in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality.
children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private respondent’s father, Telesforo
Ybasco, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be
evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the Registry of Births. Thus, under express. The mere fact that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was a
the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not
a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the acts constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against
her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizen and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines
citizenship, the same must be express. As held by this court in the case of Aznar, and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under
an application for an alien certificate of registration does not amount to an express oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. Therefore, when
renunciation or repudiation of one’s citizenship. The application of the herein the herein private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy in 1992, such fact
private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her holding of an alone terminated her Australian citizenship.
Australian passport, as in the case of Mercado vs. Manzano, were mere acts of
assertion of her Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the same. Then, too, it is significant to note that on January 15 1992, private respondent
Thus, at the most, private respondent had dual citizenship - she was an Australian executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship, duly registered in
and a Filipino, as well. the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia on May 12, 1992.
And, as a result, on February 11, 1992, the Australian passport of private
Moreover, under Commonwealth Act 63, the fact that a child of Filipino parent/s was respondent was cancelled, as certified to by Second Secretary Richard F. Munro of
born in another country has not been included as a ground for losing one’s the Embassy of Australia in Manila. As aptly appreciated by the COMELEC, the
Philippine citizenship. Since private respondent did not lose or renounce her aforesaid acts were enough to settle the issue of the alleged dual citizenship of
Philippine citizenship, petitioner’s claim that respondent must go through the Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. Since her renunciation was effective, petitioner’s claim that
process of repatriation does not hold water. private respondent must go through the whole process of repatriation holds no
water.

3. In the case of Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court clarified “dual citizenship” as used
in the Local Government Code and reconciled the same with Article IV, Section 5 4. Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial
of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in which a or administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is generally not
Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, and as an involuntary consequence considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding challenging the same, citing
of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of another state, the the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration. He insists that the
Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with same issue of citizenship may be threshed out anew.
dual allegiance. The Court succinctly pronounced:
Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e. the principle of res
“xxx the phrase ‘dual citizenship’ in R.A. No. 7160, xxx 40 (d) and in R.A. No. 7854, judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship.
xxx 20 must be understood as referring to ‘dual allegiance’. Consequently, persons However, in the case of Burca vs. Republic, an exception to this general rule was
with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.” recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata
may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:
Thus, the fact that the private respondent had dual citizenship did not automatically
disqualify her from running for a public office. Furthermore, it was ruled that for 1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said
candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship person is a party;
upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as persons
with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the
foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen. This resolution thereof, and
is so because in the certificate of candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino
3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. for obtaining a foreign passport while having a Filipino citizenship. Yu then filed a
petition for habeas corpus. An internal resolution of 7 November 1988 referred the
Although the general rule was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did case to the Court en Banc. The Court en Banc denied the petition. He then filed a
not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance motion for reconsideration with prayer for restraining order but it was denied. After
may somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, though not really denial, he filed a motion for clarification with prayer for restraining order. On
binding, to make the effort easier or simpler. Indeed, there appears sufficient basis December 7,1988, the temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued. The
to rely on the prior rulings of the Commission on Elections in SPA. No. 95-066 and respondent filed a motion to lift the said TRO, contending that Yu was in full
EPC 92-54 which resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the herein private knowledge and Legal capacity when he applied for Philippine citizenship through
respondent. The evidence adduced by petitioner is substantially the same evidence naturalization he consequently recognizes, identifies and agrees to the oath taken
presented in these two prior cases. Petitioner failed to show any new evidence or which states to renounce “absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any
supervening event to warrant a reversal of such prior resolutions. However, the foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty” and pledged to maintain true faith
procedural issue notwithstanding, considered on the merits, the petition cannot and allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Hence, petitioner then knows the
prosper. limitations or restrictions once solemnizing said oath and its succeeding
consequences should they be violated.
Issue:

Was the petitioner’s act constituted a renunciation of his Philippine citizenship?

Ruling:

Yes, considering the facts stated, the court ruled that the Petitioner’s acts constitute
Willie Yu v. Miriam Defensor-Santiago et al., an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship through naturalization. Express
Express renunciation or expatriation naturalization means renunciation made known distinctly and explicitly, and not that
Willie Yu v. Miriam Defensor-Santiago et al., which is implied. After acquiring Philippine citizenship, with full knowledge, he
resumed his prior status as a Portuguese citizen by applying for a renewal of his
G.R. No. L-83882 Portuguese passport and representing himself as a Portuguese in official and
commercial documents. The court found that such acts are grossly inconsistent with
January 24,1989 the maintenance of his Philippine citizenship.
Facts:

Petitioner Willie Yu is a Portuguese National who acquired Philippine citizenship by David vs. Agbay G.R. No. 199113 March 18, 2015 Retroactivity of laws,
naturalization on February 10,1978. Despite his naturalization, he applied for and Citizenship, R.A. 9225
was issued a renewed Portuguese Passport by the Consular Section of the AUGUST 4, 2018
Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo. Said Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese FACTS:
passport expired on July 20, 1986. Being a naturalized Filipino, he signed
commercial documents stating his citizenship as Portuguese without the Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by
authentication of an appropriate Philippine consul. He was then detained by the CID naturalization. Upon retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines
and purchased a lot along the beach in Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a
residential house. However, the portion where they built their house is public land Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the
and part of the salvage zone. effectivity of R.A. 9225, he belongs to the first category of natural- born Filipinos
under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost Philippine citizenship by
Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over the subject land with naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law allows dual citizenship, he was
the DENR. In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a Filipino citizen. able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance.

Private respondent Editha Agbay opposed the application on the ground that For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his
petitioner, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal MLA, it is not necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the
complaint for falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the RPC against retroactivity of such reacquisition because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his
the petitioner. category as having already lost Philippine citizenship, in contradistinction to those
natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 came into force.
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became
Republic Act No. 9225. foreign citizens as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read
together with Section 3, the second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy
The CENRO rejected petitioner’s MLA, ruling that petitioner’s subsequent re- governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity.
acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was
void ab initio. Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is
a Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then
An information for Falsification of Public Document was filed before the MTC and a still a Canadian citizen.
warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.
Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen,
Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have naturalization in a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born
been committed before he had re- acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC citizen loses his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship
concluded that petitioner was at that time still a Canadian citizen. under R.A. 9225 six months later, the falsification was already a consummated act,
the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is
Petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. The petition was denied. of public document under Article 172, paragraph 1.

ISSUE: NESTOR A. JACOT V. ROGEN T. DAL and COMELEC

27 November 2008
Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for falsification for representing himself
as a Filipino in his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of GR No. 179848
Philippine citizenship under the provisions of R.A. 9225.
TOPIC:
RULING:
Loss and Re-Acquisition of Citizenship Whether or not petitioner has validly complied the citizenship requirement as
required by law for persons seeking public office.
FACTS:
HELD:
Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot assails the Resolution dated 28 September 2007 of the ,
affirming the Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the COMELEC Second Division, Contrary to the assertions made by petitioner, his oath of allegiance to the Republic
disqualifying him from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin of the Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG and his Certificate of
in the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a personal
make a personal renouncement of his US citizenship. and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship, because these are distinct
requirements to be complied with for different purposes.
Petitioner was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized
citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. Petitioner sought to reacquire his Philippine Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that natural-born citizens of the
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Philippines, who are already naturalized citizens of a foreign country, must take the
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act. following oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to reacquire or retain
their Philippine citizenship.
He filed a request for the administration of his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines with the Philippine Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, By the oath dictated in the afore-quoted provision, the Filipino swears allegiance to
California. The Los Angeles PCG issued on 19 June 2006 an Order of Approval of the Philippines, but there is nothing therein on his renunciation of foreign citizenship.
petitioner’s request, and on the same day, petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines before Vice Consul Edward C. Yulo. On 27 The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public office, who either
September 2006, the Bureau of Immigration issued and Identification Certificate, retained their Philippine citizenship or those who reacquired it, to make a personal
recognizing petitioner as a citizen of the Philippines. and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer
authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before the filing of the
Six months after, on 26 March 2007, petitioner filed his Certificate of Candidacy for certificate of candidacy.
the Position of Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Catarman, Camiguin.
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who
In the meantime, the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections were held. have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who reacquired or
Petitioner garnered the highest number of votes for the position of Vice Mayor. retained their Philippine citizenship

On 12 June 2007, the COMELEC Second Division finally issued its Resolution11 (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and
disqualifying the petitioner from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman,
Camiguin, for failure to make the requisite renunciation of his US citizenship (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the Philippines,

ISSUE/S: to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of
their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.
 The trial decision ordered by the trial court declaring Condon disqualified and
TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ineligible to hold office of vice mayor of Caba La union and nullified her proclamation
ELECTIONS, LUIS M. BAUTISTA, ROBELITO V. PICAR and WILMA P. as the winning candidate.
PAGADUAN,Respondents. After that the decision was appealed to the comelec, but the appeal was dismissed
y the second division and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Facts: The petitioner contends that since she ceased to be an Australian citizen on
The petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen having been born of Filipino parents September 27, 2006, she no longer held dual citizenship and was only a Filipino
on August 8, 1944. On December 13, 1984, she became a naturalized Australian citizen when she filed her certificate of candidacy as early as the 2007 elections.
citizen owing to her marriage to a certain Kevin Thomas Condon. Hence, the "personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship" imposed by
On December 2, 2005, she filed an application to re-acquire Philippine citizenship Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 to dual citizens seeking elective office does not apply
before the Philippine Embassy in Canberra, Australia pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. to her.
No. 9225 otherwise known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003."5 The application was approved and the petitioner took her oath of allegiance Issue: W/N petitioner disqualified from running for elective office due to failure to
to the Republic of the Philippines on December 5, 2005. renounce her Australian Citizenship in accordance with Sec. 5 (2) of R.A 9225
On September 18, 2006, the petitioner filed an unsworn Declaration of Renunciation
of Australian Citizenship before the Department of Immigration and Indigenous Ruling:
Affairs, Canberra, Australia, which in turn issued the Order dated September 27, R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino citizenship for
2006 certifying that she has ceased to be an Australian citizen.6 natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship18 by taking an oath
The petitioner ran for Mayor in her hometown of Caba, La Union in the 2007 of allegiance to the Republic.
elections. She lost in her bid. She again sought elective office during the May 10, Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
2010 elections this time for the position of Vice-Mayor. She obtained the highest citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
numbers of votes and was proclaimed as the winning candidate. She took her oath aforesaid oath.
of office on May 13, 2010. The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that restores one’s Filipino
Soon thereafter, private respondents Robelito V. Picar, Wilma P. Pagaduan7 and citizenship and all civil and political rights and obligations concomitant therewith,
Luis M. Bautista,8 (private respondents) all registered voters of Caba, La Union, subject to certain conditions imposed in Section 5.
filed separate petitions for quo warranto questioning the petitioner’s eligibility before Section 5, paragraph 2 provides:
the RTC. The petitions similarly sought the petitioner’s disqualification from holding (2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification
her elective post on the ground that she is a dual citizen and that she failed to for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and,
execute a "personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
any public officer authorized to administer an oath" as imposed by Section 5(2) of renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized
R.A. No. 9225. to administer an oath.
The petitioner denied being a dual citizen and averred that since September 27, On September 18, 2006, or a year before she initially sought elective public office,
2006, she ceased to be an Australian citizen. She claimed that the Declaration of she filed a renunciation of Australian citizenship in Canberra, Australia. Admittedly,
Renunciation of Australian Citizenship she executed in Australia sufficiently however, the same was not under oath contrary to the exact mandate of Section
complied with Section 5(2), R.A. No. 9225 and that her act of running for public 5(2) that the renunciation of foreign citizenship must be sworn before an officer
office is a clear abandonment of her Australian citizenship. authorized to administer oath.
The supreme court said that, the renunciation of her Australian citizenship was petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he
invalid due to it was not oath before any public officer authorized to administer it gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004. Thus, this petition.
rendering the act of Condon void.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The In a report dated October 16, 2007, the Office of the Bar Confidant cites Section 2,
Resolution dated September 6, 2011 of the Commission on Elections en bane in Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
EAC (AE).
SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. – Every
applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines,
Republic of the Philippines at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the
SUPREME COURT Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
Manila good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
EN BANC

B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007 Applying the provision, the Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue of his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met all the
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar. It
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner. recommends that he be allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines,
conditioned on his retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his duties and
RESOLUTION responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.

CORONA, J.: We approve the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with certain
modifications.
This bar matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave
to resume the practice of law. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.2 It is so delicately
affected with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State (through
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public
he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. welfare.3
He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical
aid program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree
May 2004. of morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with
the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship.1 On membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice
that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the continued
and now intends to resume his law practice. There is a question, however, whether exercise of his professional privilege.4
 citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides: membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the
practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates
SECTION 1. Who may practice law. – Any person heretofore duly admitted as a the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege
member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions denied to foreigners.16
of this Rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a
Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This
accordance with the statutory requirements and who is in good and regular standing is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
is entitled to practice law. deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225]."17 Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court mandates deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
that an applicant for admission to the bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at least with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his
twenty-one years of age, of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines.5 membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice
He must also produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral accrues.
character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.6 Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines
and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) shall apply
Moreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice."18
satisfactory proof of educational, moral and other qualifications;7 passing the bar Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to
examinations;8 taking the lawyer’s oath9 and signing the roll of attorneys and RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the
receiving from the clerk of court of this Court a certificate of the license to authority to do so, conditioned on:
practice.10
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
The second requisite for the practice of law ― membership in good standing ― is
a continuing requirement. This means continued membership and, concomitantly, (b) the payment of professional tax;
payment of annual membership dues in the IBP;11 payment of the annual
professional tax;12 compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal
requirement;13 faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession education; this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge
and being continually subject to judicial disciplinary control.14 of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and

Given the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice (d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
law in the Philippines? No. responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge
to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall
be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law.15 Since Filipino
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of Representative of the
Philippine bar. First District of Leyte for the 1995 Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent
Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a candidate for the same
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED, position, filed a “Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" with the Commission
subject to compliance with the conditions stated above and submission of proof of on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which he may retake his oath as a residency. The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months
member of the Philippine bar. under residency, which she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood"
in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy filed on March 29, 1995 and
SO ORDERED. that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. She
arrived at the seven months residency due to the fact that she became a resident
Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, of the Municipality of Tolosa in said months.
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes,
Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur. ISSUE: Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year residency requirement to be
Quisumbing, J., on leave. eligible in running as representative of the First District of Leyte.

Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC HELD:

TITLE: Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
CITATION: 248 SCRA 300 Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election purposes. The court
are in favor of a conclusion supporting petitoner’s claim of legal residence or
FACTS: domicile in the First District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months
residency in the district for the following reasons:
Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, established her domicile in
Tacloban, Leyte where she studied and graduated high school in the Holy Infant 1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became Imelda’s domicile of
Academy from 1938 to 1949. She then pursued her college degree, education, in origin by operation of law when her father brought them to Leyte;
St. Paul’s College now Divine Word University also in Tacloban. Subsequently, she
taught in Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban. She went to manila during 1952 2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile,
to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in the a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new
House of Representatives. In 1954, she married late President Ferdinand Marcos one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence
when he was still a Congressman of Ilocos Norte and was registered there as a of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.
voter. When Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived together in
San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965, when Marcos won 3. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term
presidency, they lived in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law. When
Miguel Manila. She served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor Imelda married late President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and
of Metro Manila during 1978. merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium.
4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired
right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon Jalosjos then filed a certificate of candidacy (COC) for Governor of Zamboanga
returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of Sibugay for the 2010 elections. Erasmo filed a petition to cancel the COC on the
origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence ground of failure to comply with the one year residency requirement of the Local
certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brother’s house, an act, Government Code (LGC).
which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close
ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other COMELEC held that Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide intention
important milestones. to establish a domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay. It held that when he first moved
back to the Philippines, he was merely a guest or transient at his brother's house in
WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary Ipil, and for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his domicile. Meanwhile, Jalosjos
residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First won the elections.
District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated April 24, May 7,
May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent COMELEC is ISSUE:
hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner Whether or not the COMELEC is correct in holding that petitioner did not present
as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte. ample proof of a bona fide intention to establish domicile at Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay.
JALOSJOS vs. COMELEC and ERASMO
HELD:
G.R. No. 191970; April 24, 2012 NO. The COMELEC is incorrect. Jalosjos has successfully proven by his acts of
renouncing his Australian citizenship and by living in Ipil, that he has changed his
Ponente: Abad domicile to Zamboanga Sibugay.

Doctrine: Proof required to establish domicile of a reinstated Filipino citizen running The LGC requires that a gubernatorial candidate be a resident of the province for
for governor of a province at least one year before the elections. For the purposes of election laws, the
requirement of residence is synonymous with domicile: i.e. he must have an
FACTS: intention to reside in a particulaar place, but must also have personal presence
Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon City. He migrated to Australia coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.
when he was eight years old and acquired Australian citizenship. In 2008, he
returned to the Philippines and lived in Zamboanga, he took an oath of allegiance The question of residence is a question of intention. To determine compliance with
to the Philippines and was issued a certificate of reacquisition of citizenship by the the residency/domicile requirement, jurisprudence has laid down the following
Bureau of Immigration and he renounced his Australian citizenship. guidelines:

Jalosjos applied for registration as a voter in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, but Private (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;
Respondent Erasmo, the barangay captain, opposed the registration. COMELEC
approved the application and included Jalosjos in the voter's list. This decision was (b) where once established, that domicile remains until he acquires a new
affirmed at the MCTC and at the RTC. one; and
(c) a person can have but one domicile at a time. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and SETS ASIDE the Resolution of
the COMELEC Second Division dated February 11, 2010 and the Resolution of the
The facts show that Jalosjos' domicile of origin was Quezon city. When he acquired COMELEC En Banc dated May 4, 2010 that disqualified petitioner Rommel Jalosjos
Australian citizenship, Australia became his domicile by operation of law and by from seeking election as Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay.
choice. On the other hand, when he came to the Philippines in November 2008 to
live with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is evident that Jalosjos did so with ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO v. COMELEC, GR No. 209835, 2015-09-22
intent to change his domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his Australian
Facts:
citizenship, and renounced his allegiance to that country and reacquired his old
citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines. By his acts, Jalosjos Petitioner... and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr.
forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly proving that he gave up his
domicile there. And he has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil, Zamboanga were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province of
Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections.
Sibugay.
Private respondent filed a
To hold that Jalosjos has not established a new domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay
despite the loss of his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice Petition... cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a
and by operation of law (Australia) would violate the settled maxim that a man must false representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible to run for Mayor...
despite being a Canadian... citizen and a nonresident thereof.
have a domicile or residence somewhere.
Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC... he took an Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines before the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada on...
Neither can COMELEC conclude that Jalosjos did not come to settle his domicile and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to
in Ipil since he has merely been staying at his brother's house. A candidate is not Republic Act (RA) No. 9225
required to have a house in order to establish his residence or domicile in that place.
It is enough that he should live there even if it be in a rented house or in the house Thereafter, he renounced his Canadian citizenship and executed an Affidavit of
of a friend or relative. To insist that the candidate own the house where he lives Renunciation before a Notary Public in Batanes on
would make property a qualification for public office. What matters is that Jalosjos
2012
has proved two things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an intention of making it
his domicile. On
As evidence, Jalosjos presented his next-door neighbors who testified that he was
physically present in Ipil, he presented correspondence with political leaders and 2013
local and national party mates, furthermore, he is a registered voter by final COMELEC... issued a Resolution finding that petitioner made a material misrepresentation
judgement of the RTC. The court also noted that Jalosjos has since acquired a lot in his COC when he declared that he is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu... within one year
in Ipil and a fish pond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay. This, without a prior to the election.
doubt is sufficient to establish his intent to set his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay. It found that while petitioner complied with the requirements of RA No. 9225 since he had
taken his Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and had validly renounced his Canadian
DISPOSITIVE citizenship, he failed to comply with the other requirements provided under RA No. 9225 for
those... seeking elective office, i.e., persons who renounced their foreign citizenship must
still comply with the one year residency requirement provided for under Section 39 of the
Local Government Code. Philippine citizenship on the current residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino.

Elections were subsequently held... and... petitioner won over private respondent... was RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence.
proclaimed Mayor... petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the COMELEC...
canceling his COC. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, both Philippine and foreign...
citizenships, he may establish residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of
private respondent filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation which he is also a citizen.

COMELEC En Banc... denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. However, when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship seeks for an elective public
office, residency in the Philippines... becomes material.
Petitioner filed with us the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order. al Government Code requires that the candidate must be a resident of the place where he
seeks to be elected at least one year immediately preceding the election day.
COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. issued a Writ of Execution.
Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus,
Private respondent took his Oath of Office... claims that he did not abandon his Philippine it could be said that he had his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later
domicile. worked in Canada and became a Canadian citizen.

he was born and baptized in Uyugan,... he was a registered voter and had... exercised his naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of domicile in the
right of suffrage and even built his house therein. Philippines. This holds true in petitioner's case as permanent resident status in Canada is
required for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.
also contends that he usually comes back to Uyugan
Hence, petitioner had effectively abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and transferred
Petitioner insists that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in canceling his COC. his domicile of choice in Canada. His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation
from work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such abandonment.
Issues:
[Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 had no
whether petitioner had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes at least one (1) year before the automatic impact or effect on his residence/domicile.
elections held on May 13, 2013 as he represented in his CO... what is the effect of
petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 on his residence or Hence, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not
domicile? automatically make him regain his residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that
after becoming a Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan,
Ruling: Batanes as his... new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made it as
such.
We are not persuaded.
petitioner failed... to prove that he was able to reestablish his residence in Uyugan within a
RA No. 9225, which is known as the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003, period of one year immediately preceding the May 13, 2013 elections... the period from
declares that natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who have lost their Philippine September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even less than the one year residency required
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire by law.
or... retain his Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law.
We concluded that material representation contemplated by Section 78 refers to
The law does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or retention of qualifications for elective office, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any...
Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of such reacquisition or retention of
other legal qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as provided for in the Held: Yes. Miguel's application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S.
Local Government Code. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is
a permanent resident of the United States. In the "Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien
Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality, the misrepresentation must consist Registration" which Miguel filled up in his own handwriting and submitted to the US Embassy
of a deliberate attempt to mislead,... misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render in Manila before his departure for the United States in 1984, Miguel's answer to Question
a candidate ineligible. No. 21 therein regarding his "Length of intended stay (if permanently, so state)," Miguel's
answer was, "Permanently." On its face, the green card that was subsequently issued by
We, therefore, find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the COMELEC in canceling the US Department of Justice and Immigration and Registration Service to Miguel identifies
petitioner's COC for material misrepresentation. him in clear bold letters as a RESIDENT ALIEN. On the back of the card, the upper portion,
the following information is printed: “Alien Registration Receipt Card. Person identified by
this card is entitled to reside permanently and work in the United States.”

Caasi vs. CA, 191 SCRA 229 (1990) Despite his vigorous disclaimer, Miguel's immigration to the United States in 1984
constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. He did not go
Facts: to the United States merely to visit his children or his doctor there. He entered the US with
the intention to live there permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrant's
Merito Miguel was elected as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan in the local elections of January (not a visitor's or tourist's) visa.
18, 1988. His disqualification, however, was sought by Mateo Caasi on the ground that
under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code Miguel was not qualified because he is a
green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the USA and not of Bolinao. Sec. 48 Issue: Whether Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November 1987 and presenting
provides: himself as a candidate for mayor of Bolinao in the January 18, 1988 local elections, waived
his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States
Sec. 68. Disqualifications - Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to
a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless Held: No. To be "qualified to run for elective office" in the Philippines, the law requires that
said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country the candidate who is a green card holder must have "waived his status as a permanent
in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. resident or immigrant of a foreign country." Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of
candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a waiver of his
Miguel admitted that he holds a green card, but he denied that he is a permanent resident status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green
of the United States. He argued that he obtained the green card for convenience in order card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his
that he may freely enter the United States for his periodic medical examination and to visit candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior waiver, he was "disqualified
his children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of Bolinao, Pangasinan and to run for any elective office."
that he voted in all previous elections, including the plebiscite on February 2, 1987 for the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution and the congressional elections on May 18, 1987. Miguel's application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.S. and his
possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a
After hearing, the Comelec dismissed the petition. It held that the possession of a green permanent resident of the U.S. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. The waiver
card by the respondent Miguel does not sufficiently establish that he has abandoned his of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. Absent clear
residence in the Philippines. evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green
card to the appropriate U.S. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local
elections on January 18, 1988, the conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said
Issue: Whether a green card is proof that the holder thereof is a permanent resident of the public office.
United States such that it would disqualify him to run for any elective local position.
Issue: Whether or not Miguel is disqualified from office.
Held: Yes. Miguel admits that he holds a green card, which proves that he is a permanent o Coquilla came to the PH and took out a residence certificate.
resident or immigrant it of the United States, but the records of this case are starkly bare of · November 7, 2000
proof that he had waived his status as such before he ran for election as municipal mayor
of Bolinao on January 18, 1988. We, therefore, hold that he was disqualified to become a o Coquilla’s application for repatriation under RA 8171 was approved.
candidate for that office. Hence, his election was null and void. · November 10, 2000
o Coquilla took his oath as a Filipino citizen
Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for elective office for at least one (1) · November 21, 2000
year at the time of filing his certificate of candidacy is one of the qualifications that a
candidate for elective public office must possess. Miguel did not possess that qualification
o Coquilla registered as a voter in Oras, Eastern Samar.
because he was a permanent resident of the United States and he resided in Bolinao for a · January 12, 2001
period of only three (3) months (not one year) after his return to the Philippines in November o His application was approved by the Election Registration Board
1987 and before he ran for mayor of that municipality on January 18, 1988. · February 27, 2001
o Coquilla filed a certificate of candidacy, stating that he had been a resident of
● In banning from elective public office Philippine citizens who are permanent residents or
immigrants of a foreign country, the Omnibus Election Code has laid down a clear policy of the Philippines for two years.
excluding from the right to hold elective public office those Philippine citizens who possess · Neil Alvarez, Coquilla’s rival, sought the cancellation of the latter’s certificate
dual loyalties and allegiance. The law has reserved that privilege for its citizens who have o Contention: Coquilla had only resided for about six months since November 10,
cast their lot with our country "without mental reservations or purpose of evasion." The 2000 when he took his oath.
assumption is that those who are resident aliens of a foreign country are incapable of such
entire devotion to the interest and welfare of their homeland for with one eye on their public
· COMELEC was not able to render judgment before the May 14, 2001 elections,
duties here, they must keep another eye on their duties under the laws of the foreign country wherein Coquilla won.
of their choice in order to preserve their status as permanent residents thereof. · July 19, 2001
o COMELEC granted Alvarez’s petition
● Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that "any public officer o COMELEC’s ruling: Coquilla’s regular trips to the PH cannot be considered as a
or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of
another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law" is not applicable to Merito waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of USA prior to November
Miguel for he acquired the status of an immigrant of the United States before he was 10, 2000. The one-year residency requirement contemplates actual residence of
elected to public office, not "during his tenure" as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan. (G.R. the citizen in the constituency where he seeks to be elected.
No. 88831 November 8, 1990)
Issues:
Coquilla v. COMELEC 1. Did COMELEC lose the authority to act on the petition of Alvarez since it did
G.R. No. 151914 not give a ruling before the elections?
July 31, 2002 2. Was Coquilla a resident of Oras, Samar at least one year before the elections?
3. Coquilla contended that he was only compelled to adopt US citizenship. Is this
Facts: tenable?
· February 17, 1938 4. Was Coquilla’s registration as voter of Samar in January 2001 conclusive of
o Teodoro Coquilla was born of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar his residency as candidate?
· 1965
o Coquilla joined the US Army and was naturalized as a US citizen Ruling:
o He remained in America but visited the Philippines thrice from 1970 to 1973.
· October 15, 1998
1. No. According to Section 6 of RA 6646, the candidates who are not disqualified 4. No. According to Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code, a voter must have
by final judgment may be voted on, but the COMELEC may suspend the resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the city or municipality wherein
proclamation when the ground for disqualification is strong. he proposes to vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the elections. It
was held in Nuval v. Guray that registration as a voter does not bar the filing of a
2. No. RA 7160, Section 39(a) provides that the candidate must be a resident for subsequent case questioning a candidate’s lack of residency.
at least one year immediately preceding the day of the election. The term
“residence” is to be understood NOT as “dwelling” or “habitation” but as domicile or Thus, the statement in Coquilla’s COC that he had been a resident of the Philippines
legal residence. is not true. COMELEC is justified in ordering the cancellation of the COC as per
Section 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
· Domicile – the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent
home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually
intends to return and remain (animus manendi)
· Domicile of origin – domicile acquired at birth

Coquilla lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a US citizen. Until November
10, 2000, Coquilla was an alien without any right to reside in the PH. Residence is
a requirement in becoming a US citizen according to Title 8, Section 1427 of the
US Code. The naturalization in a foreign country results in an abandonment of
domicile in the Philippines.

3. No. Coquilla was repatriated under RA 8171, which provides repatriation for
natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity. He was not repatriated based on RA 2630, which applies to repatriation
of those who lost PH citizenship by accepting commission in the Armed Forces of
the United States.

He had the following options for waiving his status as non-resident, but he did not
avail of them:
1. Obtaining an immigrant visa under Section 13 of the Philippine Immigration
Act of 1948
· This waives his status as a non-resident
2. Acquire PH citizenship by naturalization under CA 473
3. Repatriation OR by an act of Congress
· Availed when one is a former PH national
· He waives not only his status as an alien but also his status as a non-resident
alien