Question: What is the status of one who is a holder of an Alien Certificate of Registration while at the

same time a holder of a valid Philippine passport?

Answer: He is still a Filipino, eventhough he is a holder of an Alien Certificate, he possessed both

nationalities and citizenship. When We consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine
citizenship must be "express", it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine citizenship
when there is no renunciation, either "express" or "implied.

Aznar vs COMELEC and Osmea 185 SCRA 1990

Facts:

Private Respondent Emilio "Lito" Osmea ran for Governor of Cebu in January 18, 1988 local elections.
Petitioner Aznar questioned the candidacy of the respondent on the ground that he is allegedly not a
Filipino citizen, being a citizen of the United States of America. It was later shown that he is a holder of
Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence

Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging: that he is the
legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmea, a Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmea, Sr., that
he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and has not gone out of the country for
more than six months; and that he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.

On March 3, 1988, COMELEC proclaimed respondent as the Provincial Governor of Cebu. Thereafter, on
June 11, 1988, COMELEC dismissed the petition for disqualification for not having been timely filed and
for lack of sufficient proof that private respondent is not a Filipino citizen.

Issue: Whether or not private respondent Osmena has lost his Filipino Citizenship and thus be disqualified
as a candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu Province.

Held: No. Held: NO. By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that private
respondent is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent
had lost his Philippine citizenship. The petitioner failed to present direct proof that private respondent
had lost his Filipino Citizenship by any of the modes provided under C.A. No. 63 namely: (1) By
naturalization in a foreign country; (2) By express renunciation of Citizenship; and (3) By subscribing to an
oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. Thus, it is clear that private
respondent Osmea did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned herein above or
by any other mode of losing Philippine Citizenship. In the instant case, private respondent vehemently
denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the United States. He is a holder of a valid and subsisting
Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the electoral process in this country since 1963
up to the present, both as a voter and as a candidate.

The respondent did not lose his Filipino Citizenship and thereby qualified as a candidate for the Provincial
Governor of Cebu Province.