Date: September 20, 2017

To: LAW 505 Students, AY 2017-2018

From: Atty. J.J. Sevilla, CPA

Hi FERVIDs!

For our meeting on Sept. 22 and 23 we will be tackling the following:

A. Do a recap on
Secrecy of Bank Deposits and Other Banking Laws
1.RA 1405
2. Foreign Currency Deposit Act
3. PDIC Law *
-Insurable deposits
-Maximum liability
-Requirements for Claims
4. Unclaimed Balances Law
5. Others
-Thrift Banks Act
-Rural Banks Act
-Venture Capital Corporations
-Offshore Banking System
-Truth in lending Act
-Pawnshop Regulation Act
-The Basel Accords

AMLA Law
1. RA 9160
2. Covered transactions
3. Suspicious transactions
4. Reportorial Requirement
5. Other Matters

B. Thereafter, we will discuss

Intellectual Property Law (except provisions under Part 1 Intellectual Property
Office) *
1.The Law on Patents
2. The Law on Trademark, Service Marks and Trade Names
3. The Law on Copyright
4. Other Matters
- Unfair Competition
-Protection of Trade Secrets
- Law on Business Names

Cases 1st Batch (PATENTS)

 Pearl and Dean vs.Shoe Mart 409 SCRA 231 (2003)
Manzano,vs.,CA,G.R.No.113388, September5,1997)
Maguan,vs.,CA,146SCRA107 [1986]
Creser,Precision,Systems,vs.,CA,286 SCRA 13 [1998]).
Mattel, Inc. vs. Francisco 560 SCRA 504 (2010)
Vargas vs. Chua, G.R. No. L-36650, January 27, 1933).
Godines vs. CA, 226 SCRA 338)
Smith Kline vs. CA, G.R. No. 12167, October 23, 2001)
Smith Kline Beckham Corp. vs CA 409 SCRA 33 (2003)
Del Rosario vs. CA 255 SCRA 152 (1996)
Tanada vs Angara 272 SCRA 18 (1997)
Parke, Davis and Co. vs. Doctors Pharmaceutical 14 SCRA 1053 (1965)
Ching vs Salinas Jr 462 SCRA 241 (2005)

For those who havent recited yet, you may volunteer to recite the cases above
on a first come first serve basis. You may communicate through Sharah the case
that you want to recite. At the same time, once you have chosen a case, you are
required to prepare a case digest for said case. Such Case Digest should contain
the following:

a. Legal Principle/Topic related to the case

b. Facts containing the Petitioners and the Respondents Arguments and
indicating which argument prevailed.
c. Issue of the case vis--vis the topic at hand
d. Ruling of the case indicating the Rule/Legal basis, Application and
Conclusion.
For better view of the case digest format, I am indicating below a sample
format of said digest.

See you!4
LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP Whether or not Respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still
be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship so as to sustain his election as Congressman
of Pangasinan

FACTS:
- Respondent Cruz is a natural-born citizen
- He was naturalized as an American citizen for he joined the US Marine Corps
- He then repatriated or reacquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 2636
- He won as Congressman of Pangasinan against Petitioner Bengson

a) Petitioners Arguments (Bengson III Lost)

- Argued that Respondent Cruz is disqualified to be a Congressman for he is not a natural-born citizen
- Argued that his naturalization as an American citizen and consequent repatriation as Philippine citizen lost his status as a natural-
born citizen for natural-born citizens are those which are citizens who do not need to perform any act to acquire or complete their
Filipino citizenship
- Appeal to SC the decision of HRET

b) Respondents Arguments (HRET, Cruz - Win)

- Argued that he is still a natural-born citizen despite the naturalization and repatriation
- HRET rendered decision on his favor

ISSUE:
- Whether or not Respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a natural-born
Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship so as to sustain his election as Congressman of Pangasinan

RULING:
Conclusion:
- Respondent Cruz is still a natural-born Filipino. The appeal is dismissed.
Rule:
- There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These ways of acquiring citizenship
correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is
a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof.9
- As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citezenship."10
- On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under
Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law
(Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530
- Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner provided by law. Commonwealth
Act. No. (C.A. No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by
naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress
- As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippine and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the person concerned resides
or last resided
- Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. 26 This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his
citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born
citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino
Application:
- In this case, having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the Civil Registry
of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original
status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. 27 It bears stressing that the act of
repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship
Conclusion:
- Thus, Respondent Cruz is still a natural-born Filipino