CITIZENSHIPA. General Principles.1. Defined: Membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent in charactera) Distinguished from nationality. Nationality is membership in any class or form of political community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if members of democratic community] or subjects [if members of a monarchical community]. Nationality does not necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising civil or political rights2. Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:a) By birthi) jus sanguinisii) jus solib) By naturalizationc) By marriage3. Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines:a) Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution:i) Jus sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11,1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare their intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October 11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11, 1899. ii) Jus soli. As held in Roa v. Collector of Customs, 25 Phil 315, which was uniformly followed until abandoned in Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, 79 Phil 249; but applied again in Talaroc v. Uy, 92 Phil 52, until abandoned with finality in Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam v. Republic, 101 Phil. 195. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized as such today, not because of the application of the jus soli doctrine, but principally because of the doctrine of res judicata.b) After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the jus sanguinis doctrine.4. Natural-born citizens. Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship shall be deemed natural- born citizens [Sec. 2, Art. IV],5. Marriage by Filipino to an alien: Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it [Sec. 4, Art. IV].6. Policy against dual allegiance: Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law [Sec. 5, Art. IV]. a) In Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, the Court clarified the dual citizenship disqualification in Sec. 40, Local Government Code, and reconciled the same with Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution on dual allegiance. Recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act and as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of another state, the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under the disqualification. This ruling is reiterated in Valles v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000. i) Furthermore, for candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the certificate of candidacy one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship [Mercado v. Manzano, supra.; Valles v. Comelec, supra.].ii) However, this doctrine in Valles and Mercado that the filing of a certificate of candidacy suffices to renounce foreign citizenship does not apply to one who, after having reacquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225, runs for public office. To comply with the provisions of Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225, it is necessary that the candidate for public office must state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship [Lopez v. Comeiec, G.R. No. 182701, July 23, 2008]. In Mercado, the disqualification was sought under another law, Sec. 40 (d) of the Local Government Code, in which the Court defined the term dual citizenship vis-a-vis the concept of dual allegiance, and at the time the case was decided, R.A. 9225 was not yet enacted by Congress [Jacot v. Dal and Comeiec, G.R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008].b) In Calilung v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, the constitutionality of R.A. 9225 (An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, amending for the purpose, Com. Act No. 63) was challenged, allegedly for violating Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution. It was claimed that Sec. 2 allows all Filipinos, whether natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship; while Sec. 3 allows former natural-bom citizens to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. In upholding the validity of RA 9225, the Court said that the intent of the legislature is to do away with the provision in CA63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. It allows dual citizenship; but on its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. Plainly, Sec. 3 stays clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifts the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.i) Sec. 5, Art. IV of the Constitution is a declaration of policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Secs. 2 and 3, RA 9225, the legislature was not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance; thus, it would be premature for the judicial department to rule on issues pertaining to it. It should be noted that Mercado v. Manzano did not set the parameters of dual allegiance, but merely made a distinction between dual allegiance and dual citizenship. 7. Attack on ones citizenship may be made only through a direct, not a collateral proceeding [Co v. HRET, 199 SCRA 692]. 8. Res judicata in cases involving citizenship. The doctrine of res judicata does not ordinarily apply to questions of citizenship. It does so only when: (a) A persons citizenship is resolved by a court or an administrative body as a material issue in the controversy, after a full-blown hearing; (b) With the active participation of the Solicitor General or his representative; and (c) The finding of his citizenship is affirmed by the Supreme Court. Then the decision on the matter shall constitute conclusive proof of such partys citizenship in any other case or proceeding [Board of Commissioners, CID v. de la Rosa, 197 SCRA 853, citing Zita Ngo Burca v. Republic, 19 SCRA 186].B. Citizens of the Philippines.1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this [1987] Constitution.a) Re: 1935 Constitutioni) Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916 [including children born after April 11, 1899]ia) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., the Supreme Court made reference to these organic acts and declared that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez who was born in Australia to parents Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian, on May 16, 1934, before the 1935 Constitution took effect, was a Filipino citizen. Under these organic acts, inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, who did not opt in writing to retain Spanish nationality between April 11, 1899 to October 11, 1900 including their children were deemed citizens of the Philippines. Rosalinds father was, therefore, a Filipino citizen, and under the principle of jus sanguinis, Rosalind followed the citizenship of her father.jb) A similar conclusion was reached in Maria Jeanette Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004, on the controversy surrounding the citizenship of Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ), presidential candidate. The issue of whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen would depend on whether his father, Allan F. Poe, was himself a Filipino citizen, and if in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of FPJ prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo Poe (father of Allan F. Poe), who died in 1954 at 84 years old, would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Poe would have benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ), The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. ii) Act No. 2927 [March 26,1920], then CA473, on naturalization [including children below 21 and residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization, as well as children born subsequent to naturalization],iii) Foreign women married to Filipino citizens before or after November 30, 1938 [effectivity of CA 473] who might themselves be lawfully naturalized [in view of the Supreme Court interpretation of Sec. 15, CA473, in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292].iv) Those benefited by the Roa doctrine applying the jus soli principle.v) Caram provision: Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this [1935] Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Islands. In Chiongbian v. de Leon, the Supreme Court held that the right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible.vi) Those who elected Philippine citizenship. b) Re: 1973 Constitution. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Provision is prospective in application; to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973 [date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution],2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Prospective application, consistent with provision of the 1973 Constitution. 3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. a) Procedure for election. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any official authorized to administer oaths. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry. The statement is to be accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines [Sec. 1, CA 625].b) When to elect. Within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority [Opinion, Secretary of Justice, s. 1948]; except when there is a justifiable reason for the delay.i) In Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5 SCR A 110, where the Supreme Court ruled that there was justifiable reason for the delay because the party thought all along that he was already a Filipino citizen. See also In Re: Florencio Mallari, 59 SCRA 45, where the Supreme Court enunciated the doctrine of implied election. And in Co v. HRET, supra., the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of the HRET that the exercise of the right of suffrage and participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.ii) But see In Re: Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999, where Ching, having been born on April 11, 1964, was already 35 years old when he complied with with requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Chings election was clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his mentioned acts cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which Ching did not comply with.c) The right is available to the child as long as his mother was a Filipino citizen at the time of her marriage to the alien, even if by reason of such marriage, she lost her Philippine citizenship [Cu v. Republic, 89 Phil 473]; and even if the mother was not a citizen of the Philippines at birth [Opinion, Sec. of Justice, s. 1948].d) The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority, the child is an alien [Villahermosa v. Commissioner of Immigration, 80 Phil 541].e) The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. In Republic v. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004, it was held that respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. This notwithstanding, records show that the respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of electing Philippine citizenship. i)i) Indeed, in Serra v. Republic, 91 Phil 914, it was held that if the child is illegitimate, he follows the status and citizenship of his only known parent, the mother.4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.C. Naturalization. The act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen [Record, Senate, 12th Congress, June 4-5, 2001],1. Modes of naturalization:a) Direct: Citizenship is acquired by: (i) Individual, through judicial or administrative proceedings; (ii) Special act of legislature; (iii) Collective change of nationality, as a result of cession or subjugation; or (iv) In some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State where they are born.b) Derivative: Citizenship conferred on: (i) Wife of naturalized husband; (ii) Minor children of naturalized person; or on the (iii) Alien woman upon marriage to a national.2. Doctrine of indelible allegiance. An individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired.3. Direct naturalization under Philippine laws. Under current and existing laws, there are three (3) ways by which an alien may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:a) judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended;b) administrative naturalization under Rep. Act No. 9139; andc) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress, bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.4. Naturalization under C.A. 473.a) Qualifications: [a] Not less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing of the petition; [b] Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably held office in Government, established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines, married to a Filipino woman, been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or private school not established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a particular nationality or race) or in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years, or bom in the Philippines; [c] Good moral character; believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution; must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations with the constituted government as well as the community in which he is living; [d] Own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation; [e] Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal Philippine languages; [f] Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public or private schools recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization.b) Disqualifications: Those [a] Opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; [b] Defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas; [c] Polygamists or believers in polygamy; [d] Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; [e] Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease; [f] Who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos; [g] Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of such war; [h] Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.c) Procedure:i) Filing of declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of the petition with the Office of the Solicitor General. The following are exempt from filing declaration of intention:ia) Born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public or private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.ib) Resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of the petition, and enrolled his children in elementary and high schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.ic) Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.ii) Filing of the petition, accompanied by the affidavit of two credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character witnesses.iii) Publication of the petition. Under Sec. 9, Revised Naturalization Law, in order that there be a valid publication, the following requisites must concur: (a) the petition and notice of hearing must be published; (b) the publication must be made once a week for three consecutive weeks; and (c) the publication must be in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation in the province where the applicant resides. In addition, copies of the petition and notice of hearing must be posted in the office of the Clek of Court or in the building where the office is located [Republic v. Hamilton Tan Keh, G.R. No. 144742, November 11, 2004], The same notice must also indicate, among others, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce at the trial [Republic v. Michael Hong, G.R. No. 168877 March 23 2006], iiia) Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Noncompliance is fatal for it impairs the very root or foundation of the authority to decide the case, regardless of whether the one to blame is the clerk of court or the petitioner or his counsel [Gan Tsitung v. Republic, 122 Phil. 805; Po Yo Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400].iiib) This rule applies equally to the determination of the sufficiency of the contents of the notice of hearing and of the petition itself, because an incomplete notice or petition, even if published, is no publication at all.Thus, in Sy v. Republic, 154 Phil. 673, it was held that the copy of the petition to be posted and published should be a textual or verbatim restatement of the petition filed.iiic) In the same vein, the failure to state all the required details in the notice of hearing, like the names of applicants witnesses, constitutes a fatal defect. The publication of the affidavit of such witnesses did not cure the omission of their names in the notice of hearing. It is a settled rule that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favour of the government and against the applicant [Ong Chua v. Republic G R No 127240, March 27, 2000]. iv) Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.v) Hearing of the petition.vi) Promulgation of the decision.vii) Hearing after two years. At this hearing, the applicant shall show that during the two-year probation period, applicant has (i) not left the Philippines; (ii) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession; (iii) not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and (iv) not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies.viii) Oath taking and issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization. [In Republic v. de la Rosa, 232 SCRA 785], and companion cases, the Supreme Court noted several irregularities which punctuated the petition and the proceedings in the application for naturalization of Juan C. Frivaldo, viz: the petition lacked several allegations required by Secs. 2 and 6 of the Naturalization Law; the petition and the order for hearing were not published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation; the petition was not supported by affidavits of two credible witnesses vouching for the good moral character of the petitioner; the actual hearing of the petition was held earlier than the scheduled date of hearing; the petition was heard within 6 months from the last publication; the petitioner was allowed to take the oath of allegiance before finality of the judgment, and without observing the two-year probationary period.]d) Effects of naturalization: ,i) Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, supra.).ia) In Moy Ya Lim Yao, the Court said that the alien wife of the naturalized Filipino need not go through the formal process of naturalization in order to acquire Philippine citizenship. All she has to do is to file before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation a petition for the cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR). At the hearing on the petition, she does not have to prove that she possesses all the qualifications for naturalization; she only has to show that she does not labor under any of the disqualifications. Upon the grant of the petition for cancellation of the ACR, she may then take the oath of the allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and thus, become a citizen of the Philippines.ii) Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be considered citizens of the Philippines.iii) Minor child born outside the Philippines who was residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization shall be considered a Filipino citizen.iv) Minor child born outside the Philippines before parents naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines.v) Child born outside the Philippines after parents naturalization shall be considered a Filipino, provided that he registers as such before any Philippine consulate within one year after attaining majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance.e) Denaturalization.i) Grounds:ia) Naturalization certificate is obtained fraudulently or illegally. In Republic v. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, the Supreme Court declared that a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Availment of a tax amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his lack of good moral character.ib) If, within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country and establishes residence there; provided, that 1-year stay in native country, or 2-year stay in a foreign country shall be prima facie evidence of intent to take up residence in the same.ic) Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention.id) Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of the parents either by neglecting to support them or by transferring them to another school.ie) Allowed himself to be used as a dummy. [In Republic v. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although the misconduct was committed after the two-year probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ground for denaturalization.]ii) Effects of denaturalization: If the ground for denaturalization affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, the denaturalization shall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization. But if the ground was personal to the denaturalized Filipino, his wife and children shall retain their Philippine citizenship.5. Naturalization by direct legislative action. This is discretionary on Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made outstanding contributions to the country.6. Administrative Naturalization [R.A. 9139]. The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000 would grant Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings to aliens born and residing in the Philippines. In So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007, the Supreme Court declared that CA 473 and RA 9139 are separate and distinct laws. The former covers aliens regardless of class, while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos, who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to Filipino customs and traditions. The intention of the legislature in enacting RA 9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical, and more encouraging. There is nothing in the law from which it can be inferred that CA473 is intended to be annexed to or repealed by RA 9139. What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native-born aliens. The only implication is that a native- born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.a) Special Committee on Naturalization. Composed of the Solicitor General, as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his representative, and the National Security Adviser, as members, this Committee has the power to approve, deny or reject applications for naturalization under this Act.b) Qualifications: Applicant must [1] be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth; [2] not be less than 18 years of age, at the time of filing of his/her petition; [3] be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles of the Constitutioin and must have conducted himself/ herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his relatioins with the duly constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she is living; [4] have received his/her primary and secondary education in any public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum and where enrolment is not limited to any race or nationality, provided that should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools; [5] have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and that of his/her family; provided that this shall not apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship; [6] be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and [7] have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs and traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.c) Disqualifications: The same as those provided in C.A. 473.d) Procedure: Filing with the Special Committee on Naturalization of a petition (see Sec. 5, RA 9139, for contents of the petition); publication of pertinent portions of the petition once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, with copies thereof posted in any public or conspicuous area; copies also furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, the civil registrar of petitioners place of residence and the National Bureau of Investigation which shall post copies of the petition in any public or conspicuous areas in their buildings offices and premises, and within 30 days submit to the Committee a report stating whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on file or any such relevant and material information which might be adverse to petitioners application for citizenship; Committee shall, within 60 days from receipt of the report of the agencies, consider and review all information received pertaining to the petition (if Committee receives any information adverse to the petition, the Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain or refute the information); Committee shall then approve or deny the petition. Within 30 days from approval of the petition, applicant shall pay to the Committee a fee of P100,000, then take the oath of allegiance and a certificate of naturalization shall issue. Within 5 days after the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance, the Bureau of Immigration shall forward a copy of the oath to the proper local civil registrar, and thereafter, cancel petitioners alien certificate of registration.e) Status of Alien Wife and Minor Children. After the approval of the petition for administrative naturalization and cancellation of the applicants alien certificate of registration, applicants alien lawful wife and minor children may file a petition for cancellation of their alien certificates of registration with the Committee, subject to the payment of the required fees. But, if the applicant is a married woman, the approval of her petition for administrative naturalization shall not benefit her alien husband, although her minor children may still avail of the right to seek the cancellation of their alien certificate of registration.f) Cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization. The Special Committee on Naturalization may cancel certificates of naturalization issued under this act in the following cases: [1] if the naturalized person or his duly authorized representative made any false statement or misrepresentation, or committed any violation of law, rules and regulations in connection with the petition, or if he obtains Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally; [2] if, within five years, he shall establish permanent residence in a foreign country, provided that remaining for more than one year in his country of origin or two years in any foreign country shall be prima facie evidence of intent to permanently reside therein; [3] if allowed himself or his wife or child with acquired citizenship to be used as a dummy; [4] if he, his wife or child with acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to national security.D. Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship (C.A. 63).1. Loss of citizenship.a) Bv naturalization in a foreign country. See Frivaldo v. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245.i) However, this is modified by R.A. 9225, entitled An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Cititzenship Permanent (which took effect September 17, 2003), which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.ii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republilc: ________________ , solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225]iii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225].iv) The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, R.A. 9225].v) Those who retain or reacquire Phiilippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:va) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution, R.A. 9189, otherwise known as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 and other existing laws;vb) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;vb1) In Eusebio Eugenio Lopez v. Comelec, G.R. No. 182701, July 23, 2008, reiterated in Jacotv. Dal and Comelec, G.R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008, it was held that a Filipino-American, or any dual citizen cannot run for elective public office in the Philippines unless he personally swears to a renunciation of all foreign citizenship at the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy. The mere filing of a certificate of candidacy is not sufficient; Sec. 5 (2) of R.A. 9225 categorically requires the individual to state in clear and unequivocal terms that he is renouncing all foreign citizenship, failing which, he is disqualified from running for an elective position. The fact that he may have won the elections, took his oath and began discharging the functions of the office cannot cure the defect of his candidacy. The doctrine laid down in Valles v. Comelec, supra., and Mercado v. Manzano, supra., does not apply.vc) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office; Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;vd) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall aplly with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice;ve) The right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who: (1) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or (2) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens [Sec. 5, R.A. 9225].b) By express renunciation of citizenship. In Board of Immigration Commissioners v. Go Callano, 25 SCRA 890, it was held that express renunciation means a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or implication. Thus, in Labo v. Comelec, 176 SCRA 1, it was held that Labo lost Filipino citizenship because he expressly renounced allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for Australian citizenship.i) In Valles v. Comelec, supra., it was held that the fact that private respondent was born in Australia does not mean that she is not a Filipino. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most she can also claim Australian citizenship, resulting in her having dual citizenship. That she was a holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration do not constitute effective renunciation, and do not militate against her claim, of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, it must be express.ii) But see Willie Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, where obtention of a Portuguese passport and signing of commercial documents as a Portuguese were construed as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.c) Bv subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining 21 years of age; Provided, however, that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in any manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country.i) This should likewise be considered modified by R.A. 9225.ii) The proviso that a Filipino may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while the Republic of the Philippines is at war with any country may be considered as an application of the principle of indelible allegiance.d) Bv rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country; Provided, that the rendering of service to, or acceptance of such commission in, the armed forces of a foreign country and the taking of an oath of allegiance incident thereto, with consent of the Republic of the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of his Philippine citizenship if either of the following circumstances is present: (i) The Republic of the Philippines has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said foreign country; or (ii) The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with the consent of the Republic of the Philippines.e) Bv cancellation of the certificate of naturalization.f) Bv having been declared bv competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted.2. Reacquisition of citizenship.a) Under R.A. 9225, bv taking the oath of allegiance required of former natural-born Philippine citizens who may have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their acquisition of the citizenship of a foreign country.b) By naturalization, provided that the applicant possesses none of the disqualifications prescribed for naturalization.i) In Republic v. Judge de la Rosa, supra., the naturalization proceeding was so full of procedural flaws that the decision granting Filipino citizenship to Governor Juan Frivaldo was deemed a nullity.c) By repatriation of deserters of the Army, Navy or Air Corps, provided that a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be repatriated in accordance with the provisions of this Act after the termination of the marital status.i) See P.D. 725, which allows repatriation of former natural-born Filipino citizens who lost Filipino citizenship.ia) In Frivaldo v. Comelec and Lee v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, the Supreme Court held that P.D. 725 was not repealed by President Aquinos Memorandum of March 27, 1986, and, thus, was a valid mode for the reacquisition of Filipino citizenship by Sorsogon Governor Juan Frivaldo.ib) The Special Committee on Naturalization created by PD 725, chaired by the Solicitor General with the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NICA as members, was reactivated on June 8, 1995, and it is before this Committee that a petition for repatriation is filed [Angat v. Republic, G.R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999].ii) When repatriation takes effect. In Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727, it was held that repatriation of Frivaldo retroacted to the date of filing of his application on August 17, 1994. In Altarejos v. Comelec, G.R. No. 163256, November 10, 2004, the same principle was applied. Petitioner took his Oath of Allegiance on December 17,1997, but his Certificate of Repatriation was registered with the Civil Registry of Makati only after six years, or on February 18, 2004, and with the Bureau of Immigration on March 1, 2004. He completed all the requirements for repatriation only after he filed his certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty position, but before the elections. But because his repatriation retroacted to December 17-, 1997, he was deemed qualified to run for mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections.iii) Effect of repatriation. In Bengzon lll v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the act of repatriation allows the person to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, respondent Cruz, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural- born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through repatriation.iv) Repatriation under R. A. 8171 (lapsed into law on October 23, 1995). The law governs the repatriation of Filipino women who may have lost Filipino citizenship by reason of marriage to aliens, as well as the repatriation of former natural-born Filipino citizens who lost Filipino citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, including their minor children, provided the applicant is not a person [a] opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing organized government; [b] defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the predominance of his ideas; [c] convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; or [d] suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease. Repatriation is effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registration in the proper Civil Registry and in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation.iva) In Tabasa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, Joevanie Tabasa, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, acquired American citizenship through derivative naturalization when, still a minor, his father became a naturalized citizen of the United States. On October 3,1995, he was admitted to the Philippines as a balikbayan, but within a year, he was charged by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID), because it appeared that the US Department of Justice had revoked his passport and was the subject of an outstanding federal warrant of arrest for possession of firearms and one count of sexual battery. Finding him an undocumented and undesirable alien, the BID ordered his deportation. After learning of the BID order, he then immediately executed an Affidavit of Repatriation and took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. On the issue of whether he validly reacquired Philippine citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The privilege of RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity and to their minor children. This means that if a parent who had renounced his Philippine citizenship due to political or economic reasons later decides to repatriate under RA8171, his repatriation will also benefit his minor children. Thus, to claim the benefit of RA 8171, the children must be of minor age at the time the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent. This is so because a child does not have the legal capacity to undertake a political act like the election of citizenship. On their own, the minor children cannot apply for repatriation or naturalization separately from the parents. Tabasa is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA8171.d) By direct act of Congress.

CASES1. SO vs. REPUBLICFACTS: On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison So filed before the RTC a Petition for Naturalization under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has lived in No. 528 Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee, he derives an average annual income of around P100,000.00 with free board and lodging and other benefits; he is single, able to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; he is exempt from the filing of Declaration of Intention to become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, as amended, because he was born in the Philippines, and studied in a school recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and culture are taught; he is a person of good moral character; he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine constitution; he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people; he has all the qualifications provided under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, as amended; he is not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; he is not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of mens ideas; he is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy; he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; he is not suffering from any incurable contagious diseases or from mental alienation; the nation of which he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines; it is his intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to China; and he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the time of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission as citizen of the Philippines. Attached to the petition were the Joint Affidavit of Atty. Artemio Adasa, Jr. and Mark B. Salcedo; and petitioners Certificate of Live Birth, Alien Certificate of Registration, and Immigrant Certificate of Residence.No one opposed the petition. During the hearing, petitioner presented Atty. Adasa, Jr. who testified that he came to know petitioner in 1991 as the legal consultant and adviser of the So familys business. He would usually attend parties and other social functions hosted by petitioners family. He knew petitioner to be obedient, hardworking, and possessed of good moral character, including all the qualifications mandated by law. Atty. Adasa, Jr. further testified that petitioner was gainfully employed and presently resides at No. 528 Lavezares Street, Binondo, Manila; petitioner had been practicing Philippine tradition and those embodied in the Constitution; petitioner had been socially active, mingled with some of his neighbors and had conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire stay in the Philippines; and petitioner and his family observed Christmas and New Year and some occasions such as fiestas. According to the witness, petitioner was not disqualified under C.A. No. 473 to become a Filipino citizen: he is not opposed to organized government or believes in the use of force; he is not a polygamist and has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; neither is he suffering from any mental alienation or any incurable disease.Another witness for petitioner, Mark Salcedo, testified that he has known petitioner for ten (10) years; they first met at a birthday party in 1991. He and petitioner were classmates at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) where they took up Pharmacy. Petitioner was a member of some school organizations and mingled well with friends. Salcedo further testified that he saw petitioner twice a week, and during fiestas and special occasions when he would go to petitioners house. He has known petitioner to have resided in Manila since birth. Petitioner is intelligent, a person of good moral character, and believes in the principles of the Philippine Constitution. Petitioner has a gainful occupation, has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner and has all the qualifications to become a Filipino citizen.Petitioner also testified and attempted to prove that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines.At the conclusion of his testimonial evidence, petitioner offered in evidence the following documents: (1) Certificate of Live Birth; (2) Alien Certificate of Registration; (3) Immigrant Certificate of Residence; (4) Elementary Pupils and High School Students Permanent Record issued by Chang Kai Shek College; (5) Transcript of Record issued by the University of Santo Tomas; (6) Certification of Part-Time Employment dated November 20, 2002; (7) Income Tax Returns and Certificate of Withholding Tax for the year 2001; (8) Certification from Metrobank that petitioner is a depositor; (9) Clearances that he has not been charged or convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; and (10) Medical Certificates and Psychiatric Evaluation issued by the Philippine General Hospital. The RTC admitted all these in evidence.The RTC granted the petition. The trial court ruled that the witnesses for petitioner had known him for the period required by law, and they had affirmed that petitioner had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. Thus, the court concluded that petitioner had satisfactorily supported his petition with evidence.Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the decision contending that based on the evidence on record, appellee failed to prove that he possesses all the qualifications under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473. It insisted that his two (2) character witnesses did not know him well enough to vouch for his fitness to become a Filipino citizen; they merely made general statements without giving specific details about his character and moral conduct. The witnesses did not even reside in the same place as petitioner. Respondent likewise argued that petitioner himself failed to prove that he is qualified to become a Filipino citizen because he did not give any explanation or specific answers to the questions propounded by his lawyer. He merely answered "yes" or "no" or gave general statements in answer to his counsels questions. Thus, petitioner was unable to prove that he had all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications required by law to be a naturalized Filipino citizen.On the other hand, petitioner averred that he graduated cum laude from the UST with the degree of Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy. He is now on his second year as a medical student at the UST Medicine and Surgery. He avers that the requirements for naturalization under C.A. No. 473, as amended by LOI 270, in relation to Presidential Decree Nos. 836 and 1379, had been relaxed after the Philippine government entered into diplomatic relations with the Peoples Republic of China; the requirements were further relaxed when Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139 was signed into law. In its Reply Brief, respondent alleged that R.A. No. 9139 applies to administrative naturalization filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization. It insisted that even in the absence of any opposition, a petition for naturalization may be dismissed.The CA set aside the ruling of the RTC and dismissed the petition for naturalization without prejudice. According to the CA, petitioners two (2) witnesses were not credible because they failed to mention specific details of petitioners life or character to show how well they knew him; they merely "parroted" the provisions of the Naturalization Act without clearly explaining their applicability to petitioners case. The appellate court likewise ruled that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of the law that the applicant must not be less than 21 years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition; during the first hearing on December 12, 2002, petitioner was only twenty (20) years, nine (9) months, and twenty five (25) days old, falling short of the requirement. The CA stated, however, that it was not its intention to forever close the door to any future application for naturalization which petitioner would file, and that it believes that he would make a good Filipino citizen in due time, a decided asset to this country.Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied; hence, the present petition grounded on the sole issue:ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA.RULING: The petition is denied for lack of merit.Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.Petitioners contention that the qualifications an applicant for naturalization should possess are those provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and not those set forth in C.A. No. 473 is barren of merit. The qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial act are set forth in Sections 246 and 447 of C.A. No. 473. On the other hand, Sections 348 and 449 of R.A. No. 9139 provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by administrative act.First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws the former covers all aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the customs and traditions. To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging which is administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature believes that there is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines, there is nothing from which it can be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed by R.A. No. 9139. What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is that, a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.In the instant case, petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, though at the time of the filing of his petition, administrative naturalization under R.A. No. 9139 was already available. Consequently, his application should be governed by C.A. No. 473.Second. If the qualifications prescribed in R.A. No. 9139 would be made applicable even to judicial naturalization, the coverage of the law would be broadened since it would then apply even to aliens who are not native born. It must be stressed that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to aliens who were born in the Philippines and have been residing here.Third. Applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to judicial naturalization is contrary to the intention of the legislature to liberalize the naturalization procedure in the country. One of the qualifications set forth in R.A. No. 9139 is that the applicant was born in the Philippines and should have been residing herein since birth. Thus, one who was born here but left the country, though resided for more than ten (10) years from the filing of the application is also disqualified. On the other hand, if we maintain the distinct qualifications under each of the two laws, an alien who is not qualified under R.A. No. 9139 may still be naturalized under C.A. No. 473.Thus, absent a specific provision expressly amending C.A. No. 473, the law stands and the qualifications and disqualifications set forth therein are maintained.In any event, petitioner failed to prove that the witnesses he presented were competent to vouch for his good moral character, and are themselves possessed of good moral character. It must be stressed that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as insurers of the applicants conduct and character. Thus, they ought to testify on specific facts and events justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law.Petitioners witnesses, Atty. Adasa and Salcedo, did not testify on his specific acts; they did not elaborate on his traits. Their testimonies do not convince the Court that they personally know petitioner well and are therefore in a position to vouch for his qualifications. As correctly found by the CA, the witnesses testimonies consisted mainly of general statements in answer to the leading questions propounded by his counsel. What they conveniently did was to enumerate the qualifications as set forth in the law without giving specific details.In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons.56 Within the purview of the naturalization law, a "credible person" is not only an individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the applicants worthiness.The records likewise do not show that the character witnesses of petitioner are persons of good standing in the community; that they are honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and reliable. The most that was established was the educational attainment of the witnesses; however, this cannot be equated with their credibility. In fine, petitioner focused on presenting evidence tending to build his own good moral character and neglected to establish the credibility and good moral character of his witnesses.58We do not agree with petitioners argument that respondent is precluded from questioning the RTC decision because of its failure to oppose the petition. A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate.59 If the government can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court. Thus, petitioner failed to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of naturalization law. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying the petition for naturalization without prejudice.2. JACOT vs. COMELECFACTS: Petitioner Nestor Jacot assails the Resolution of COMELEC disqualifying him from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a personal renouncement of US citizenship. He was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. He sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225.ISSUE: Did Nestor Jacot effectively renounce his US citizenship so as to qualify him to run as a vice-mayor?HELD: No. It bears to emphasize that the oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having more than one citizenship.3. TABASA vs. CAFACTS: In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen of the United States. By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner also acquired American citizenship. Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor.ISSUE: Is Jeovanie Tabasa a natural-born Filipino who had lost his Philippine citizenship by reason of political or economic necessity under RA 8171?HELD: He does not. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. The privilege under RA 8171 belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of the filing of the petition for repatriation.4. IN RE: CHINGFACTS: Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese father, was born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under the 1935 Constitution. He has resided in the Philippines. He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998, filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examination. The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed to take the bar if he submit to the Court the following documents as proof of his Philippine Citizenship:1. Certification issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching is a certified accountant;2. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a registered voter of his place; and3. Certification showing that Ching was elected as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La UnionOn April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath taking ceremony was scheduled on May 5, 1999. Because of his questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was not allowed to take oath. He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship.The Office of the Solicitor General was required to file a comment on Ching's petition for admission to the Philippine Bar.In his report:1. Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and continue to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship, under the compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265 "an act providing for the manner in which the option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be declared by a person whose mother is a Filipino citizen"2. He pointed out the Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship, and if ever he does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by the present jurisprudence.ISSUE: Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a reasonable time"?RULING: No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to elect Philippine citizenship within a reasonable time. The reasonable time means that the election should be made within 3 years from upon reaching the age of majority, which is 21 years old. Instead, he elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority which the court considered not within the reasonable time. Ching offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship, as procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required is an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and file the same with the nearest civil registry.5. VALLES vs. COMELECFACTS: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to aFilipinofather and an Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines, where she later married aFilipinoand has since then participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as acandidate, as well. In the May 1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a petition for her disqualification ascandidateon the ground that she is an Australian.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or aFilipino

HELD: The Philippine law oncitizenshipadheres to theprincipleof jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality orcitizenshipof the parentsregardlessof the place of his/herbirth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality orcitizenshipon the basis of place ofbirth.Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic acts by whichthe UnitedStates governed thecountry. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law.Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Privaterespondentsfather, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on Jan. 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte.... Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of herbirth, Telesforos daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established theprincipleof jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippinecitizenship, xxxSo also, theprincipleof jus sanguinis, which conferscitizenshipby virtue ofbloodrelationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is aFilipinocitizen, having been born to aFilipinofather. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows theprincipleof jus soli, then at most, private respondent can alsoclaimAustralian citizenshipresulting to her possession of dualcitizenship.6. MERCADO vs. MANZANOFACTS: Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano are candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998 elections. Private respondent was the winner of the said election but the proclamation was suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Mamaril regarding the citizenship of private respondent. Mamaril alleged that the private respondent is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the private respondent for being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local Government code that provides that persons who possess dual citizenship are disqualified from running any public position. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained pending until after election. Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. COMELEC reversed the decision and declared private respondent qualified to run for the position. Pursuant to the ruling of the COMELEC, the board of canvassers proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor. This petition sought the reversal of the resolution of the COMELEC and to declare the private respondent disqualified to hold the office of the vice mayor of Makati.

ISSUE: WON Manzano is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor.

HELD: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The 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 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 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 (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship: (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children are citizens of that country; (3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals volition.

By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.

By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.

7. TECSON vs. COMELECFACTS: The case at bar is a consolidated case filed by petitioners questioning thecertificateof candidacy of herein private respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. The latter filed hiscertificateof candidacy for the position of President ofthe Philippinesunder the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) party. He represented himself in saidcertificateas a natural-born citizen ofthe Philippines, which reason that petitioners filed a petition before the Comelec to disqualify private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. and to deny due course or to cancel hiscertificateof candidacy on the ground that the latter made a material misrepresentation in hiscertificateof candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino when in truth his parents were foreigners and he is an illegitimate child. The Comelec dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

HELD: Before discussing on the issue at hand it is worth stressing that since private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. was born on August 20, 1939, the applicable law then controlling was the 1935 constitution. The issue on private respondents citizenship is so essential in view of the constitutional provision that, No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Based on the evidence presented which the Supreme consider as viable is the fact that the death certificate of Lorenzo Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he died on September 11, 1954 at the age of 84 years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo Poe was stated to be San Carlos, Pangansinan. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence before death. Considering that the allegations of petitioners are not substantiated with proof and since Lorenzo Poe may have been benefited from the en masse Filipinization that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan Poe father of private respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. was a Filipino citizen. And, since the latter is governed by the provisions of the 1935 Constitution which constitution considers as citizens of the Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines, Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a natural-born citizen of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or illegitimate.

8. REPUBLIC vs. SAGUNFACTS: Respondent is the legitimate child of father, aChinese national, and mother, a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio Cityand did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. At the age of 33, she executed an Oath of Allegianceto the Republic of the Philippines.The document was notarized but was not recorded and registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City. In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but was denied due to the citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship. Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate.ISSUES:1. Whether respondents petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship is authorized by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence; and2. Whether the respondent has effectively elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed by lawRULING: WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court isREVERSEDandSET ASIDE. The petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun is herebyDISMISSEDfor lack of merit.1. YES. But it should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts. Respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship when clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship.2. NO. Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by election.All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondents petition before the trial court must be denied.

COMMONWEALTH ACT No. 473 - AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION, AND TO REPEAL ACTS NUMBERED TWENTY-NINE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN AND THIRTY-FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT.Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:Section 1.Title of Act. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Revised Naturalization Law."Section 2.Qualifications. Subject to section four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:First.He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition;Second.He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years;Third.He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living.Fourth.He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;Fifth.He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; andSixth.He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education1of the Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.Section 3.Special qualifications.The ten years of continuous residence required under the second condition of the last preceding section shall be understood as reduced to five years for any petitioner having any of the following qualifications:1. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;3. Being married to a Filipino woman;4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years;5. Having been born in the Philippines.Section 4.Who are disqualified.- The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens:a. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;b. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas;c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;d. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;e. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;f. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;g. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States2and the Philippines are at war, during the period of such war;h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States3whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.Section 5.Declaration of intention. One year prior to the filing of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice4a declaration under oath that it isbona fidehis intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines, and the place of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the declaration. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for permanent residence has been established and a certificate showing the date, place, and manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant must also state that he has enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education5 of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government, and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish two photographs of himself.Section 6.Persons exempt from requirement to make a declaration of intention. Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application,may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the otherrequirementsof this Act.To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The same shall be understood applicable with respect tothe widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.6Section 7.Petition for citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and former places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act; and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition.Section 8.Competent court.The Court of First Instance of the province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition.Section 9.Notification and appearance.Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner's expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The clerk shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the Interior, 7 the Bureau of Justice,8 the Provincial Inspector9 of the Philippine Constabulary of the province and the justice of the peace10 of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides.Section 10.Hearing of the petition.No petition shall be heard within the thirty days preceding any election. The hearing shall be public, and the Solicitor-General, either himself or through his delegate or the provincial fiscal concerned, shall appear on behalf of the Commonwealth11 of the Philippines at all the proceedings and at the hearing. If, after the hearing, the court believes, in view of the evidence taken, that the petitioner has all the qualifications required by, and none of the disqualifications specified in this Act and has complied with all requisites herein established, it shall order the proper naturalization certificate to be issued and the registration of the said naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry as required in section ten of Act Numbered Three thousand seven hundred and fifty-three.12Section 11.Appeal.The final sentence may, at the instance of either of the parties, be appealed to the Supreme Court.13Section 12.Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.If, after the lapse of thirty days from and after the date on which the parties were notified of the Court, no appeal has been filed, or if, upon appeal, the decision of the court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court,14and the said decision has become final, the clerk of the cou