Ilagan, Karen Cate G. LLB Viada - 1 LLB 109 Co vs. HRET Fact: Respondent Jose Ong, Jr.

was born with Filipino mother and Chinese father. On May 1987 elections, he vied for the position of representative of District II of Northern Samar and won the said position. However, his citizenship is being questioned because it was contested that the respondent did not elect Philippine citizenship. Does the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship? The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.

Issue: Ruling:

Tecson vs. COMELEC Fact: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, also known as FPJ, was born on August 20, 1939. He was an illegitimate child of Bessie Kelley Poe and Allan Poe. On December 31, 2003, FPJ filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming 2004 national elections. However, his citizenship is being questioned with the contention that he is not a natural-born citizen because his mother is an American and that his father was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. Is the respondent a natural-born citizen under the 1935 Constitution? The respondent is a natural-born citizen under the 1935 Constitution.

Issue: Ruling:

Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC Fact: Petitioner Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City on January 20, 1988. However, his citizenship as a qualification for his office as mayor of Baguio City is being questioned because of his naturalization in Australia. The petitioner countered it by claiming that his naturalization in Australia did not divest his Philippine citizenship and that it only made him a dual citizen. Moreover, his Australian citizenship has been annulled after it was found that his marriage to an Australian national was bigamous. Did the petitioner voluntarily and freely lose his Philippine citizenship when he had his naturalization in Australia? The petitioner has voluntarily and freely lost his Philippine citizenship when he had his naturalization in Australia.

Issue: Ruling:

Aznar vs. COMELEC Fact: Private respondent Emilio Lito Osmea ran for public office as governor of the province of Cebu in May 1988 elections. But, his citizenship as a Filipino is being questioned with the contention that he had obtained Certificates of Alien Registration as an American citizen, first in 1958 when he was 24 years old and second in 1979, regarded as having expressly renounced his Philippine citizenship. Did the respondent lose his Philippine citizenship by acquiring Certificates of Alien Registration as an American citizen? The respondent did not lose his Philippine citizenship by acquiring Certificates of Alien Registration as an American citizen.

Issue: Ruling:

Republic vs. dele Rosa Fact: Private respondent Juan G. Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization to reacquire his Philippine citizenship. The respondent judge both set the petition for naturalization and the order for the hearing in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks and a copy of order and petition were posted thereof. However, the private respondent filed a motion to set the hearing ahead of schedule because he is running for public office in the May 1992 elections, and the filing of candidacy was one day before the scheduled hearing. The motion was granted without a publication of the order advancing the date of hearing and the petition itself, and no copy of the order and the petition were posted. The petition was heard within six months from the last publication of the petition and Mr. Frivaldo was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the finality of the judgment without observing the two-year waiting period. Do the naturalization proceedings conducted, the decision rendered and the oath of allegiance taken vitiated the procedures prescribed under the Revised Naturalization Law? The naturalization proceedings conducted, the decision rendered and the oath of allegiance taken vitiated the procedures prescribed under the Revised Naturalization Law.

Issue:

Ruling:

Frivaldo vs. COMELEC Fact: Respondent Juan G. Frivaldo ran as a governor of Sorsogon. However his opponent filed a disqualification case against him on the grounds of his citizenship. But the respondent alleged that on June 30, 1995 at 2:00 in the afternoon, he took his oath of allegiance as a Philippine citizen after his petition under P.D. 725 which he filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization in September 1994 had been granted. When he received the said order on the same date at 5:30 in the evening, there was no more legal impediments for his proclamation as governor of Sorsogon, but still, at 8:30 of that day, his opponent was proclaimed as the governor-elect of Sorsogon. Does the repatriation of the respondent retroacted to the date of the filing of his application, making him qualify to hold the office as the governor of Sorsogon? The repatriation of the respondent retroacted to the date of the filing of his application, making him qualify to hold the office as the governor of Sorsogon.

Issue:

Ruling:

Re: Application for the Admission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching, applicant. Fact: Vicente D. Ching was born on April 11, 1964. The governing charter that time was the 1935 Constitution. When he elected for his Philippine citizenship, he was already 35 years old or over fourteen years after he had reached the age of majority. Did Ching elect his Philippine citizenship within the reasonable time after reaching the age of majority? Ching did not elect his Philippine citizenship within the reasonable time after reaching the age of majority.

Issue: Ruling:

Bengson III vs. HRET Fact: Respondent Teodoro C. Cruz was born in San Clemente, Tarlac on April 27, 1960 of Filipino parents. On November 5, 1985, he was enlisted in US Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the United States. He was naturalized as an American citizen on June 5, 1990. On March 17, 1994, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship trough repatriation. In May 1998 elections, he ran and won as a representative of District II of Pangasinan. However, his citizenship is being questioned with the argument that he is not anymore a natural-born Filipino. Did the respondent restore his Philippine citizenship as a natural-born citizen by virtue of repatriation? The respondent restored his Philippine citizenship as a natural-born citizen by virtue of repatriation.

Issue: Ruling:

Republic vs. Lim Fact: Respondent Yu was born with Chinese father and Filipino mother. She is an illegitimate child because her parents were never married. Upon reaching the age of majority, she elected Philippine citizenship and registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. Does the constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children? The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children.

Issue: Ruling:

Co vs. Civil Register of Manila Fact: Hubert Tan Co and Arlene Tan Co were born with parents who were both Chinese citizens. Their father, Co Boon Peng, applied for naturalization to become a Filipino citizen. Their fathers application was granted and took his oath of allegiance at the time when both of them were already college graduates. They filed a petition for correction of entries in their birth certificates as to the citizenship of their father from Chinese to Filipino. Is it enough that the petitioners adduce in evidence the certificate of naturalization of their father and of his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to entitle them to Philippine citizenship? It is not enough that the petitioners adduce in evidence the certificate of naturalization of their father and of his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines to entitle them to Philippine citizenship.

Issue:

Ruling:

Tabasa vs. Court of Appeals Fact: Petitioner Joevanie Arellano Tabasa was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. In 1968 when he was 7 years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized US citizen. By virtue of derivative naturalization, he also acquired US citizenship. In 1995, he went back to the Philippines and was admitted as a balikbayan for a year. Subsequently, he was arrested and detained because his US passport has been revoked by the US State of Department due to a federal warrant of arrest. The petitioner then evoked that he is entitled to automatic repatriation as a child of a natural-born Filipino who left the country due to political or economic necessity. Does the petitioner validly reacquire Philippine citizenship as a naturalborn Filipino under Republic Act 8171? The petitioner does not validly reacquire Philippine citizenship as a natural-born Filipino under Republic Act 8171.

Issue: Ruling:

Angat vs. Republic Fact: Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural-born Filipino citizen but lost his citizenship by naturalization in US. Currently residing at No. 69 New York Street, Provident Village, Marikina City, he filed before the RTC of Marikina City Branch 272 on March 11, 1996 a petition to regain his Philippine citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Republic Act No. 965 and Republic Act No. 2630. Is the petitioner entitled to regain his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 965 and Republic Act No. 2630? The petitioner is not entitled to regain his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 965 and Republic Act No. 2630.

Issue: Ruling:

Valles vs. COMELEC Fact: Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In 1949, she left Australia and settled in the Philippines. On June 27, 1952, she was married to a Filipino citizen. Since then, she has continuously participated in the Philippine elections and even participated as a candidate. In 1992, she ran as a governor of Davao Oriental and won; however, her citizenship is being questioned because of her Australian citizenship. Does the mere holding of an Australian passport and obtaining an Alien Certificate of Registration constitute an effective renunciation of the petitioners Philippine citizenship and militates against her claim of Filipino citizenship? The mere holding of an Australian passport and obtaining an Alien Certificate of Registration does not constitute an effective renunciation of the petitioners Philippine citizenship and militates against her claim of Filipino citizenship.

Issue:

Ruling:

Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago Facts: In 1971, the petitioner reveals that he was originally issued a Portuguese passport valid for five years and renewed for the same period upon presentment before the proper Portuguese consular office. Despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen on February 10, 1978, on July 21, 1981 petitioner applied for and was issued Portuguese passport. The Consular Office certifies that his Portuguese passport expired on July 20, 1986. While still a citizen of the Philippines who had renounced upon his naturalization, he declared his nationality as a Portuguese national in the commercial documents he signed, specifically, the Companies Registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd. sometime in April 1980. Does the petitioners act of applying for a Portuguese passport despite his naturalization as Philippine citizen and his act of declaring that he is a Portuguese national in the commercial documents constitute an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship obtained through naturalization? The act of applying for a Portuguese passport despite his naturalization as Philippine citizen and his act of the petitioner declaring himself as a Portuguese national in the commercial documents constitutes an express renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.

Issue:

Ruling:

Alterajos vs. COMELEC

Facts:

On January 15, 2004, private respondents Jose Almie Altiche and Vernon Versoza filed with the COMELEC a petition against Ciceron Alterajos on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen and that he made a false representation of himself that he was not a permanent resident to a foreign country. The petitioner countered it by claiming that as early as December 11, 1997, he was already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization after he filed a petition for repatriation pursuant to Republic Act 8171 Is the registration of petitioners repatriation with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in effecting repatriation? The registration of the petitioners repatriation with the and with the Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in effecting repatriation. In this case, the petitioner took an Oath of Allegiance and after having registered with civil registry, the petitioner therefore, completed all the requirements of repatriation.

. Issue:

Ruling: