CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL NATIONALITY
14917,
REVIEW:
For a conflict of laws problem to
arise, there must be a legal problem
involving a FOREIGN ELEMENT.
WHAT IS A FOREIGN ELEMENT?
A factual situation that cuts across
territorial lines and is affected by the
diverse laws of two or more states is
said to contain a "foreign element".
The presence of a foreign men
inevitable since social and economic
affairs of individuals and associations
are rarely confined to the geographic
limits of their birth or conception.
The forms in which this foreign
element may appear are many. The
foreign element may simply consist
in the fact that one of the parties to a
contract is an alien or has a foreign
domicile, or that a contract between
nationals of one State involves
properties situated in another State.
In other cases, the foreign element
may assume a complex form.
(SAUDLA vs. CA, G.R. No. 1229
October 8, 1998)
JZE: By the examination of the ruling of the
SC in the case of SAUDIA relating to the
presence of the foreign element, such could
be a person. Pwedeng a foreign element is a
person.
FOREIGN ELEMENT CAN BE:
A person
Example: One of the parties to the contract
in question is an alien or is domiciled
elsewhere than the Philippines (see
Hasegawa vs | Kitamura GR No.
November 23, 2007).
An incident
Example Maia, a Filipino, was injured while
traveling to France.
A contract
Two Filipinos entered into a contract of
marriage in the United States (see Article 15
of the Civil Code)
Property
A contract between Filipinos involves
property situated in another State. (Art. 16.
Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is
situated XXX)
JZE: Conflicts problems often involve
nationals of different states. Because of
differing nationalities, complications may
arise due to conflicts rules where the law to
be applied is NATIONAL LAW of a person (ex.
Nationali or Lex Patriae).
What we are actually going to look at would
be a situation where there is litigation at a
forum court. Lets say the Philippines is the
forum court and then theres a national from
a foreign state and in that litigation, what is
involved is an issue where the national law
ought to apply based on its conflicts rules.
An example there would be Art. 15.
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens
of the Philippines, even though living
abroad. (9a)

JZE: We have no problem there because we
are talking about Filipino Citizens and we are
dealing with an application of Art. 15 in PH
courts. Perhaps the problem would arise
when the conflicts rules of that foreign State
of which that party is a national also
mandates the application of its own foreign
law or its own national law in the case of
family rights, duties, status, condition and
legal capacity of persons. Diha rata mag ka
problema but normally if we talk about the
citizenship of a person its not normally a
conflicts case as we will see later on.
FAMILY RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Those which arise from family relations, and
include those between husband and wife,
and between parent and child, among other
ascendants and other descendants and
among brothers and sister.
STATUS
Birth, marriage death, legal separation,
annulment of marriage, judgment declaring
the nullity of marriage legitimation,
adoption, acknowledgment of natural
children, naturalization, loss or recovery of
citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial
determination of filiation, voluntary
emancipation of a minor and change of
name.
JZE: If we talk about PH law, Art. 15 would
mandate that in matters of citizenship,
naturalization, you refer to the national law.
You will see later on that based on pertinent
Hague Convention provisions na ang ingon
ani nga mga issues would always be
governed by the national law. Another
example Art. 16.
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country
where it is stipulated. However, intestate
and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions,
shall be regulated by the national law of the
person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature
of the property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found. (10a)
To summarize Art. 16:
Property and Property rights in
general, you apply LEX REI SITAE or
the law of the place where the
property is situated.
But with specific reference to
SUCCESSION to PROPERTY including
SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS its going to
be NATIONAL LAW.
It is best to revisit the case of:
BELLIS vs. BELLIS G.R. No. L-23678, June 6,
1967
Amos Bellis, a US citizen, died a resident of
Texas. He left two wills - one devising a
certain amount of money to his first wife and
three legitimate children and another,
leaving rest of his estate to his seven
legitimate children. Before partition, the
legitimate children who are Filipinos
opposed on the ground that they are
deprived of their legitimes.
HELD: Applying the nationality rule, the law
of Texas should govern the intrinsic validity
of the will and therefore answer the
question on entitlement to legitimes.
JZE: Take note that the illegitimate children
are Filipinos who are entitled to legitimes
under the PH law. But with specific reference
to Art. 16, what are we talking about that
should be governed by the national law? Is it
the national law of those who are called
upon to succeed based on PH law? Or are we
talking about the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration?
We are talking about HIS (AMOS) law. It
doesnt really matter kung naa kay anak na
Filipino who under PH law are allowed
legitimes. What matters here is whose
succession is under consideration. Thats the
national law that we will apply.
Why was it that the SC applied texas law?
Because BELLIS was a US Citizen and matters
of succession to his estate is governed by his
national law according to PH conflict rules.
Lets try to digest that a little bit further.
HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
Rigby's parents are citizens of Acosta Rica
but he was born in Ruyerussia. Assume that
Acosta Rica treats children born of Acosta
Rican parents also as Acosta Ricans while
Ruyerussia treats all children born within its
territory as Ruyerussians.
CONCLUSION:
Rigby has dual citizenship. He follows the
citizenship of his parents but, based on the
laws of his place of birth, he is also a citizen
of that State.
JZE: With that you are reminded of certain
principles that relate to acquisition of
citizenship by reason simply of accident of
birth. Its birth that determines nationality.
PRINCIPLES RELATING TO ACQUISITION OF
CITIZESHIP AT BIRTH
JUS SANGUINIS
Citizenship is determined by blood
relationship. (followed in the Philippines)
JZE: Based on the 1987 Constitution, those
whose fathers or mothers are PH citizens will
also be treated as PH citizens.
JUS SOLI
Citizenship is determined by the place of
birth (followed in the US)
JZE: In other jurisdictions for example,
citizenship is determined by place of birth.
People who have the privilege of being born
in the US territory will be considered US
citizens. But it could be that your parents
went to the US and you were born there.
Therefore, based on US law, since you were
born there you are a citizen of US. But based
on the principle of Jus Sanguinis, you are also
a citizen of the country of your parents, the
PH. So naa kay dual nationality. Ex: BRUCE
LEE who is a Hong Kong citizen and a US
citizen.
Knowing what the principles are, what would
be the maximum number of citizenships that
a person can have by virtue of birth alone?
How many? To my mind, a person can have
up to three citizenships based on the
accident of birth alone. Why accident?
Because you have no choice where you are
born. You have no choice as to who you were
born to.
A person can have up to three citizenships
or nationalities based on birth alone.
EXAMPLE.
As father is a citizen of State X. State
X follows us sanguinis.
 As mother is a citizen of State Y.
State Y also follows jus sanguinis.
A was born in State Z. State Z follows
jus soli.
Multiple citizenship does not by itself
present a conflicts problem. The cases cited
in your book do not deal with conflict of laws
but citizenship issues only.
WHEN DOES MULTIPLE CITIZENSHIP
BECOME A CONFLICTS PROBLEM?
All concerned States follow the
national theory but their respective
municipal laws offer differing
treatments of the person's rights and
obligations
JZE: And so he is a citizen of State X and also
a citizen of State Y based on jus solis and jus
sanguinis. What if matters relating to his
status and even successional rights are
governed, in either or both of the countries,
by the national law but they offer different
treatment. One State for example would
allow legitimes, the other one you are free to
dispose. Or another country might even
provide that everything will go back to the
State by the principle of ESCHEAT. Or it could
be that there are certain cultures where it
would follow the antiquated practice of
primogeniture. Can you recall what that is?
It refers to a tradition where the eldest child
will inherit. But that is not allowed in the PH.
In all other cases where the different
State laws are pleaded or invoked
before the forum court
JZE: For example I have a problem with my
candidacy for public office. Remember that
under the LGC you can only apply for certain
positions or run for certain positions if you
are a natural born citizen of the PH. And you
tell the court I am automatically considered
as a Filipino citizen because in my dual
nationality, the moment that I take my oath
to the Republic of the Philippines, I am
automatically deemed to have lost my
foreign citizenship such as in the case of
Condon vs COMELEC.
You are trying to plead and prove foreign law
that will apply in your particular situation but
the forum court might insist in applying the
laws of the PH relating to citizenship. That is
a pure conflicts problem.
In all other cases where the existence
of a right or obligation depends on
the citizenship that is recognized
ALL CONCERNED STATES FOLLOW THE
NATIONALITY THEORY:
Rigby's parents are citizens Acosta Rica but
he was born in Ruyerussia. Assume the
Acosta Rica treats children born of Acosta
Rican, parents also as Acosta Ricans while
Ruyerussia treats all children born within its
territory as Ruyerussians.
Assume further that both Acosta Rica and R
SIA follow the nationality rule when it comes
to succession, that, similar to the Philippines,
the rule in both countries is that successional
rights shall be regulated by the national law
of the person whose succession is under
consideration.
Acosta Rica provides for a system of
legitimes while Ruyerussia does not. If we
follow Ruyerussian law on succession, there
is no such thing as preterition as the testator
was free to dispose of his estate by will as he
wished Assume also that Rigby died in the
Philippines with a will that left everything to
his friend Mordecai, leaving nothing to his
children.
JZE: So nay differing na possible
interpretation relating to the intrinsic
validity of the will. In State A pwede ang
preterition. He can dispose of the properties
however he wishes. But in State B, its not
allowed. Although both States clearly refer
to the national law. What is his effective
national law if:
The will is probated in the Philippines
Mordecai proved that Rigby was a
citizen of Ruyerussia and pleaded
and proved Ruyerussian succession
law
JZE: So we do not have to worry about
processual presumption.
Rigbys children also proved that
Rigby was a citizen of Acosta Rica and
pleaded and proved Acosta Rican
law.
ISSUE: What is the proper law to be applied
by the PH court?
WHAT WE DO KNOW:
For sure, we know that we will not
apply Philippine law on succession
because Rigby was not a Filipino
citizen
Based on the facts of the
hypothetical cases processual
presumption cannot be applied
because the laws of both foreign
states were properly pleaded and
proed.
WHAT WILL WE APPLY?
HAGUE CONVENTION ON CERTAIN
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF
NATIONALITY LAWS.
JZE: This was just discussed in passing by PE
BENITO because:
This is a 1930 Convention that was
promulgated by the old League of
Nations. Sometime in 1945, the
League of Nations(LN) was
disbanded. Members of the allied
forces during WWII went on to form
what we now know today as UN.
The PH was not a signatory to the
League of Nations. Its not one of the
State Parties.
BUT internationally, it has been accepted
that the UN is not a direct replacement of
the LN, continuation lang na siya sa
personality sa LN. All of the States who
ratified this Hague Convention, wala pa nila
gi withdraw ilang support. And the members
of the LN are now members of UN.
In my opinion, the Hague Convention has
already attained the status of JUS COGENS
because there is a widespread practice of the
Hague Convention among nations. Now if it
is considered as JUS COGENS it becomes a
generally accepted principle of international
law which by virtue of the Constitution, we
are sworn to uphold.
Within a third State, a person having more
than one nationality shall be treated as if he
had only one. Without prejudice to the
application of its law in matters of personal
status and of any conventions in force, a
third State shall, of the nationalities which
any such person possesses, recognize
exclusively in its territory either:
The nationality of the country in
which he is habitually and principally
resident, or
 the nationality of the country with people succeeding to the estate of a person.
which in the circumstances he They are the parties but whose succession
appears to be in fact most closely are we talking about by which we apply the
connected. (State of the most national law? The person whose succession
significant relationship rule or the who is under consideration.
proximity theory)
APPROCAHES:
JZE: This is what we call the SELECTION OF The forum court (third state) shall
EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY. Mupili gyud ang apply
forum state ug isa aka nationality. In legal o THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
questions specifically with respect to status HABITUAL RESIDENCE (The
and similar matters, the forum state has to nationality of the country in
choose one, it cannot choose to recognize which he is habitually and
both. principal resident), or
o THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
SUMMARY: THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
Under Article 5, a conflict case arises before RELATIONSHIP (The
the court of a third State. This means that nationality of the country
the party who has multiple nationalities is with which in the
NOT A CITIZEN of the forum State. circumstances appears to be
in fact the most closely
JZE: Because if you are also a citizen of the connected) or;
forum state such will treat you as its own. o THE THIRD STATES OWN
NATIONAL LAW ON
This also means that the States of the party's PERSONAL STATUS, OR
nationalities do not both follow, LEX FORI. o THE LAW MANDATED BY
TREATY
JZE: A is a citizen of State X and State Y dual
nationality. Both State X and Y follow LEX JZE: You have to remember approaches rani.
FORI, meaning all questions shall be dealt The court is free to choose.
with by the law on the forum court. Lets say
the forum is in the PH what will you apply? Take note that:
PH law, which is the law of the forum. Article 5 is without prejudice to the
application of the forum's national law on
In such litigation, the end result would be the personal status or of any conventions in
recognition of only one of the multiple force.
nationalities as the citizenship of the party of
Thus, if the public policy of the forum
person concerned. This is the process known
mandates the protection of its own nationals
as the selection of EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY.
on incidental questions, it may choose to
apply its own laws.
JZE: Im saying person concerned because
we are not necessarily talking about the JZE: You need to remember that LEX FORI
party litigant. In the case for example of may be applied regardless of mandates
made outside the forum if there are public
policy considerations are involved. Ex:
protection for labor ang public policy
consideration, then the forum court is
allowed to apply that and rejecting whatever
choice the parties have entered into.
Example:
Budoy Bryant, an orphan, is a citizen of both
State X and State Y. He has a brother who is
also a citizen of both States. Budoy traveled
to the Philippines and met a Filipina girl,
Bangs, with whom he had a relationship,
They bore one child, Hodor, who is of course
legitimate because Bangs and Budoy never
married. Budoy died leaving properties in
the Philippines. Assume that the laws of
both State X and State Y provide that the
property of a citizen who dies without
legitimate heirs goes entirely to his brothers
and sisters. Assume further that his estate is
settled in the Philippines, what law would
the Philippine court follow?
JZE: The forum court may apply PH national
law. The citizenship of the heir does not
matter. What matters in the determination
of successional rights is the citizenship of the
person whose succession is under
consideration.
HOWEVER:
Take note that Art. 5 is without
prejudice to the application of the
forums national law.
What justifies application of the LEX
FORI is public policy so nay public
interest that should be connected.
If you are the judge of the forum court in the
PH, would you allow some public policies to
override the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration?
What possible public interests are we talking
about. Diba naay ban on foreigners on
acquiring lands in the PH? What else? We
have a public policy that we should give
rights to illegitimate children.
JZE: Does public policy dictate that HODOR
should inherit?
A: Still no! Because of the same case that we
discuss BELLIS vs BELLIS. If you apply foreign
law, walay madawat iyang children. Here in
this case there were 2 wills. The contention
of the children is the first will will govern the
properties in the PH and the other, for the
properties outside the PH.
SC said that NO! Under the nationality rule,
the law of Texas shall govern the intrinsic
validity of the will and therefore answer the
question on entitlement of legitimes.
What about the PUBLIC POLICY
consideration? SC said that:
It is therefore evident that whatever public
policy or good customs may be involved in
our System of legitimes, Congress has not
intended to extend the same to the
succession of foreign nationals. For it has
specifically chosen to leave, inter alia, the
amount of successional right's, to the
decedent's national law Specific provisions
must prevail over general ones.
JZE: What about the public policy
considerations that we should preserve the
lands for Filipino nationals? Dili dapat maka
own ug land ang mga foreigners diri sa PH.
SC said that hereditary succession is not
covered by the prohibition.
THE LAW OF THE STATE OF HABITUAL
RESIDENCE:
To apply this law, the citizen must be
a national and a domiciliary of the
STATE.
JZE: If a forum court finds that a dual citizen
has his domicile in STATE X instead of STATE
Y then the effective nationality to be chosen
to govern his status would be the laws of
State X.
THE LAW OF THE STATE OF THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP:
A.K.A Proximity Theory
Grouping of factors
o What factors militate for
State X? What factors militate
for State Y?
HAGUE CONVENTION ON CERTAIN
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT
OF NATIONALITY LAWS & OTHER
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 1. It is for each State to determine
under its own law who are its nationals.
This law shall be recognised by other States
in so far as it is consistent with international
conventions, international custom, and the
principles of law generally recognised with
regard to nationality.
JZE: Whats an example of a generally
accepted principle of law relating to
nationality? Or those what we call jus
cogens?
A: As a general rule, no person shall be
considered as stateless. Mao na ang pinaka
jus cogens. Therefore, there should be rules
to determine the nationality of a person.
JZE: Each state will determine under its own
law who are its nationals.
ARTICLE IV
CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the
Philippines:
Those who are citizens of the
Philippines at the of the adoption of
this Constitution;
Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
Those born before January 17, 1973,
of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine Citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and
Those who are naturalized in the
accordance with law.
JZE: Acquisition of citizenship can be divided
into two:
Natural born
By naturalization
Section 2. 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. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born
citizens.
JZE: Pagkatawo nimo, natural born citizen
naka. Later on, when you elect PH
citizenship, does it acquire for you PH
citizenship? NO. Does it perfect for you PH
citizenship? NO. Kay PH citizen naman ka
daan. Pag elect nimo ug PH citizenship ang
effect is it will be a renunciation of your dual
citizenship.
What if you are a natural born citizen, and
you lost it later by virtue of naturalization
under the laws of a foreign country and then
later on you were repatriated. Remember
you have already lost it and when you are
repatriated technically speaking, you have to
reacquire your PH citizenship by a positive
act and that is the act of repatriation. So are
you a natural born citizen? YES. Section 2
above has been given very liberal
interpretation.
BENGSON vs. HRET
G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted
in the US Maxine Corps and took an oath of
allegiance to the USA without the consent of
the Republic of the Philippines. As a
consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship
for under CA No. 63, a Filipino citizen may
lose his citizenship by, among others,
"rendering service to or accepting
commission in the armed forces of a foreign
country."
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his
loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by
his naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in
connection with his service in the U.S.
Marine Corps. In 1994, Cruz reacquired his
Philippine citizenship through repatriation
under RA 2630. He ran for and was elected
as the Representative of the 2nd District of
Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He won
over petitioner Bengson who was then
running for reelection.
Petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad
Cautelam with respondent HRET claiming
that Cruz was not qualified to become a
member of the HOR since he is not a natural-
born citizen as required under Article VI,
section 6 of the Constitution.
JZE: What was the contention of Bengson in
his filing of a Quo Warranto? Ingon siya dili
daw qualified si Cruz because he cannot be
considered a natural born citizen anymore as
he has effectively lost his PH citizenship by
his naturalization. US citizen naman siya,
nagpa naturalized na sya. He lost it twice.
First by enlisting and second by being
naturalized.
Ingon si Bengson you have to do something
to acquire or perfect your PH citizenship by
virtue of applying for repatriation and
therefore you cannot be considered a
natural born PH citizen.
BENGSON vs. HRET
G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
ISSUE: Can Cruz can still be considered a
natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition
of Philippine citizenships?
HELD: YES. Repatriation results in the
recovery of the original nationality 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.
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, 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. It bears stressing that the act of
repatriation allows him to recover, or return
to, his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship.
JZE: Para sa ako very liberal ang pag interpret
because remember the Constitution is very
strict in saying that if you have to perform an
act which would either acquire or perfect
your PH citizenship, you are not considered
a natural born citizen. But here its clear that
the act of reacquiring your PH citizenship will
lead to the reversion of your status as a
natural born PH citizen.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost
or reacquired in the manner provided by
law.
This provision deals with:
Loss
Reacquisition
JZE: We talk about loss, we talk about the
term EXPATRIATION. We need to know what
are these expatriating acts.
LOSS (EXPATRIATING)
CA 63
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS
IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
MAY BE LOST OR REACQUIRED
CA 63
Section 1. How citizenship may be lost. A
Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any
of the following ways and/or events:
(1) By naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) By express renunciation of citizenship;
(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
support the constitution or laws of a foreign
country upon attaining twenty-one years of
age or more: 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;
(4) By rendering services to, or accepting
commission in, the armed forces of a foreign
country:
Provided, That the rendering of service to, or
the acceptance of such commission in, the
armed forces of a foreign country, and the
taking of an oath of allegiance incident
thereto, with the consent of the Republic of
the Philippines, shall not divest a Filipino of
his Philippine citizenship if either of the
following circumstances is present:
(a) The Republic of the Philippines has a
defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance
with the said foreign country; or
(b) The said foreign country maintains armed
forces on Philippine territory with the
consent of the Republic of the Philippines:
Provided, That the Filipino citizen
concerned, at the time of rendering said
service, or acceptance of said commission,
and taking the oath of allegiance incident
thereto, states that he does so only in
connection with his service to said foreign
country:
And provided, finally, That any Filipino
citizen who is rendering service to, or is
commissioned in, the armed forces of a
foreign country under any of the
circumstances mentioned in paragraph (a) or
(b), shall not be permitted to participate nor
vote in any election of the Republic of the
Philippines during the period of his service
to, or commission in, the armed forces of
said foreign country. Upon his discharge
from the service of the said foreign country,
he shall be automatically entitled to the full
enjoyment of his civil and political rights as a
Filipino citizen;
(5) By cancellation of the of the certificates
of naturalization;
(6) By having been declared by competent
authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed
forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a
plenary pardon or amnesty has been
granted; and
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her
marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the
laws in force in her husband's country, she
acquires his nationality. (n/a)
TAKE NOTE THAT NO. 7 HAS BEEN
SUPERSEDED BY THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
Section 4. 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,
...unless by their act or omission they are
deemed, under the law to have renounced
it...
The law requires renunciation on to
be expressly made. Merely staying
for an extended period of time in a
foreign country is not considered an
express renunciation. (BOARD of
IMMIGRATION vs. GO CALLANO, 25
SCRA 890)
Mere marriage, without doing
anything more, does not divest
Filipino citizenship.
BOARD of IMMIGRATION vs. GO CALLANO,
25 SCRA 890
JZE: Naay mga minor children who had a
Chinese father. Gidala sila sa China and didto
na namatay ilang papa. Some years later,
they went back to the Philippines. The BOI
wanted them deported because according to
them, they are unregistered aliens.
Childrens contention was: dili man! We are
Filipino citizens. Among mama Pilipino, we
were even born in the PH.
BOI: No, dapat mo ideport kay by your
staying for an extended period of time sa
China you are deemed to have expressly
renounced you PH citizen.
SC: NO! Dili na mao ang meaning sa express
renunciation.
CHAPTER III
NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
Article 8. If the national law of the wife
causes her to lose her nationality on
marriage with a foreigner, this consequence
shall be conditional on her acquiring the
nationality of the husband.
JZE: So the wife under the HAGUE
CONVENTION will lose her original
citizenship. But if and only if, under the
national law of her husband, she would
acquire that citizenship of her husband. Pero
kung dili, she will retain her own citizenship.

We have no problem here in the PH. Art. 8 is
definitely not applicable to us because
marriage to a foreigner does not result to the
loss of PH citizenship without doing anything
more.
Article 9. If the national law of the wife
causes her to lose her nationality upon a
change in the nationality of her husband
occurring during marriage, this consequence
shall be conditional on her acquiring her
husband's new nationality.
JZE: Nagpakasal siya ug foreigner. During
their marriage ang foreigner na husband,
nagpa naturalize sa laing country or became
a citizen of another country. Naa kay
derivative citizenship based on Art. 9. But it
is conditioned upon her acquiring her
husbands new nationality under the
national law of the new nationality.
If the wife does not acquire the new
nationality of the husband ipso facto, then
she would retain her previous nationality.
Article 10. Naturalisation of the husband
during marriage shall not involve a change in
the nationality of the wife except with her
consent.
JZE: Si Inday (Pinoy) nagpakasal kay Dodong
(American) in the US. Assume that
nagpanaturalize siya by virtue of her getting
married to Dodong and then gi denounce nia
ang PH citizenship. Karon si Dodong kay
tungod Dodong iyang name, nagpa
naturalize siya as Pinoy. Kalouy sa asawa na
Pinay, mao gani nangasawa ug kano because
she wants to live her American Dream.
Ingon si Inday, dili pwede, I have to consent
to my change of nationality. So mao na ang
scenario sa Art. 10.
Article 11. The wife who, under the law of
her country, lost her nationality on marriage
shall not recover it after the dissolution of
the marriage except on her own application
and in accordance with the law of that
country. If she does recover it, she shall lose
the nationality which she acquired by reason
of the marriage.
JZE: Again Art. 10 and 11 does not apply in
the PH by virtue of Art. IV Section 4 of the
Constitution.
READ CASE: DJUMANTAN VS DOMINGO,
GR. NO. 99358 JAN. 30, 1995.
REACQUISITION
RA 9225
CITIZENSHIP RETENTION &
REACQUISITION ACT OF 2003
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby
declared the policy of the State that all
Philippine citizens of another country shall
be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
JZE: Maski unsaon pa nimog pa naturalize
didto, as a general rule, dili nimo mawala
imong pagka Pilipino. Under US law, its very
difficult for you to lose your US citizenship.
Section 3 talks about retention of PH
citizenship.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship
- Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by
reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have
re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon
taking the following oath of allegiance to the
Republic:
"I _____________________, solemny swear
(or affrim) 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 imposed this obligation upon
myself voluntarily without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion."
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.
JZE: Section 3 is titled retention but it talks
about reacquisition.
First paragraph talks about the acquisition.
The second par. is the one that talks about
retention.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The
unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.
JZE: The most that could happen under
derivative citizenship is dual citizenship. It
doesnt lead to a loss of the formers
citizenship. Example, si Inday napud. Niad to
siya sa US nag asawa sila ni Dodong didto.
Didto sila nagkaanak. Nagpanaturalize silang
duha as American Citizens. Ang mga anak
nila are considered as Americans. Why?
Because they were born in the US. Pero si
Inday nag-isip mubalik sa iyang pagka Pinay
and so her children will have derivative
citizenship. Pag revert niya to PH citizenship,
automatically iyang mga anak mahimong PH
Citizens. But they are also US citizens so dula
citizenship sila.
JZE: Section 5 is very important. It tells you
unsa ang mga kelangan buhaton in order for
you to exercise political and civil rights
subject to the following sections.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and
Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire
Philippine 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:
(1) Those intending to exercise their
right of suffrage must Meet the
requirements under Section 1, Article
V of the Constitution, Republic Act
No. 9189, otherwise known as "The
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003" and other existing laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in
the Philippines shall meet the
qualification 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;
(3) 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;
(4) Those intending to practice their
profession in the Philippines shall
apply with the proper authority for a
license or permit to engage in such
practice; and
(5) That right to vote or be elected or
appointed to any public office in the
Philippines cannot be exercised by,
or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are
occupying any public office in
the country of which they are
naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as
commissioned or non-
commissioned officers in the
armed forces of the country
which they are naturalized
citizens.
JZE: Para lang mahimo kang PH citizen, all
you need to do is to take an oath. The
moment you take the oath of allegiance, you
are automatically a Filipino. If you intend to
run for public office which requires as a
qualification, natural born citizenship dili
enough na nahimo kang PH citizen. You have
to make a personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer an
oath.
CONDON vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012
Maja was the winning vice-mayoralty
candidate of Caba, La Union. A petition for
quo warranto was filed against her on the
ground that she is a dual citizen who, under
RA 9225, must execute a sworn renunciation
of her Australian citizenship.
Maja answered that, when she executed a
declaration of renunciation of Australian
citizenship in Australia, she is deemed to
have lost her foreign citizenship. She wanted
the court to take judicial notice of the laws
of Australia regarding loss of citizenship. She
also contended that the mere act of running
for public office is a clear abandonment of
her foreign citizenship, citing Valles versus
COMELEC.
HELD: Foreign laws are not a matter of
judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must
be alleged and proven. To prove a foreign
law, the parry invoking it must present a
copy thereof and comply with Sections 24
and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
More importantly the petitioner has validly
re-acquired her Filipino citizenship when she
took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines on December 5, 2005. At that
point, she held dual citizenship, i.e.,
Australian and Philippine.
JZE: But the SC said that was not enough
because you are running for elective office.
The SC examined jurisprudence:
In Lopez v. COMELEC, we declared that a
dual citizen cannot run for any elective
public position in the Philippines unless he or
she personally swears to a renunciation of all
foreign citizenship at the time of filing the
candidacy. To be valid, the renunciation
must be contained in an affidavit duly
executed before an officer of the law who is
authorized to administer an oath staling in
clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is
renouncing all foreign citizenship.
Section 5(2) of Republic Act No 9225
compels natural born Filipinos, who have
been naturalized as citizens of a foreign
country, but who reacquired or retained
their Philippine citizenship
(1) to take the oath of allegiance under
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225,
(2) for those seeking elective public offices in
the Philippines, to additionally execute a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship before an authorized
public officer prior or simultaneous to the
filing of their certificates of candidacy, to
qualify as candidates in Philippine elections.
JZE: Kung wala na, you are DQ from running
for public office. So theres a big difference
depending on what you want to happen.
RA 9225 Sec. 5
3) 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;
(4) Those intending to practice their
profession in the Philippines shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit
to engage in such practice;
JZE: Perfect example there would be
practicing law in the PH. Remember the
practice of law is reserved only to citizens of
the PH. If you are not a PH citizen, you
cannot practice law. Although, that can
change by way of constitutional amendment
that would allow foreigners. Ex.: ASEAN,
reciprocity
JZE: What if you are a PH citizen, you passed
the bar but by reason of circumstance, you
had to be naturalized in a foreign country.
Then, after the circumstances have changed,
you go back to the PH and you applied for PH
citizenship by repatriation (RA 9225). Can
you now practice law in the PH?
IN RE: MUNESES
GR No. 2112, July 24, 2012
Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the Ito and is, in fact, a
continuing requirement for the practice of
law. The loss thereof means termination of
the petitioner's membership in the bar; ipso
jure the privilege to engage in the practice of
law Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born
citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization
as citizens of a foreign country are deemed
to have re-acquired their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance to the Republic.
Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a
citizen of another country and later re-
acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. the period of your naturalization. Dili mag
No. 9225, remains to be a member of the retroact.
Philippine Bar.

REACQUISITION RETENTION
JZE: So pwede gihapon ka magpractice ug Applies to those Applies to those
law diri but there is a requirement na who are naturalized who are naturalized
mananghid sa ka sa SC. in a foreign country in a foreign country
before the after the effectivity
effectivity of RA of RA 9225
IN RE: DACANAY 9225
G.R. No. 1678, December 17, 2007 Reacquire PH Retain PH
citizenship upon citizenship upon
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to taking the oath taking oath
practice the legal profession in the Not considered Considered as if
Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino Filipinos during the they never lost their
citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) period of PH citizenship.
shall apply with the proper authority for a naturalization
license or permit to engage in such practice."
Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who
reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA ART. IV SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of
9225 can resume his law practice, he must citizens is inimical to the national interest
first secure from this Court the authority to and shall be dealt with by law.
do so.
JZE: Read in detail katong story ni BLAS OPLE
DACANAY, BENJAMIN M.; Manila; March 03, in your book.
1960; Roll No. 14503
DUAL CITIZENSHIP DUAL ALLEGIANCE
The state of having The state of
JZE: This is a lawyer from Manila and there two or more proclaiming
is only one Benjamin Dacanay in the roll of citizenships allegiance or loyalty
attorneys. Has the SC forgotten that way to two or more
back in 1992 in an en banc case (ADEZ sovereign states
REALTY VS CA OCT. 30 1992), it disbarred A citizen has 2 or A naturalized
Atty. Benjamin Dacanay effective more citizenships citizen continues to
immediately by intercalating a material fact by operation of law maintain his
in a pleading before a SC. RA 9225 or by allegiance to his
accident (jus soli mother country
There is a difference between retention and and jus sangguinis)
reacquisition. READ THE CASE: DAVID VS Not considered Declared inimical to
AGBAY March 2015. The SC said here that inimical to national the national
you are not considered a PH citizen during interest and by interest and is
implication of RA
 9225, deemed abhorred by
sanctioned by State national policy
policy
READ: MERCADO vs MANZANO
307 SCRA 630
MAQUILING vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. April 16,2013
Effect of using foreign passport after
repatriation under RA 9225:
It does not divest repatriated citizen
of Filipino citizenship but, upon using
foreign passport, he reverts to his
status as dual citizen as he is deemed
to have recanted his oath of
renunciation.
JZE: The use of a PH passport is not a matter
of convenience even if na reqacquire na
nimo imong PH citizenship or it led to you
effectively choosing PH citizenship and have
been repatriated already, you do not lose
your PH citizenship. But the problem is, by
using foreign passport, you revert to your
status as dual citizenship. It was as if you
recant your oath, you are no longer allowed
to run for public office.
ARNADO vs. COMELEC,
GR. No. 210164, August 18, 2015
Note the parallels and differences between
this case and Maquiling.
DIFFERENCE: Arnado, in effect, allows the
citizen who reverted to dual citizenship
status to correct the deficiency in his
qualification by submitting another oath of
renunciation upon filing his candidacy.
Popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of
candidate.
JZE: So balik siya pagka dual citizen. Pwede
nasad siya mag oath of renunciation ug usab.
Once he has done that, ma cure napud ang
defect. Dili na sad siya dual citizen, he
becomes a natural born PH citizen.
HAGUE CONVENTION
Article 2. Any question as to whether a
person possesses the nationality of a
particular State shall be determined in
accordance with the law of that State.
Article 3. Subject to the provisions of the
present Convention, a person having two or
more nationalities may be regarded as its
national by each of the States whose
nationality he possesses.
Article 4. A State may not afford diplomatic
protection to one of its nationals against a
State whose nationality such person also
possesses.
Article 5. Within a third State, a person
having more than one nationality shall be
treated as if he had only one. Without
prejudice to the application of its law in
matters of personal status and of any
conventions in force, a third State shall, of
the nationalities which any such person
possesses, recognise exclusively in its
territory either the nationality of the country
in which he is habitually and principally
resident, or the nationality of the country
with which in the circumstances he appears
to be in fact most closely connected.
JZE: Article 4 this means that the State will
not accord you the benefits of citizenship
and nationality even to its own national,
against a state whose nationality such
person also possesses.
WHY? A State has the right to doubt the
allegiance of this national. Because you are
also a national of another State who
incidentally is kalaban niya. That is what you
call the MASTER NATIONALITY RULE.
MASTER NATIONALITY RULE
The practical effect of this is that where a
person is a national of, for example, two
States (A and B), and is in the territory of
State A, then State B has no right to claim
that person as its national or to intervene on
that person's behalf.
Such a person who goes into the territory of
a third state may be treated as a national of
either A or B it does not normally matter
which one, except, for example, where the
courts of the third state have to adjudicate
upon matters relating to that persons status
and the relevant laws depend on the
person's nationality. In such cases, it is
necessary to choose an effective nationality
(i.e. one of the two nationalities is selected
as effective for the purposes of the third
state) under Article 5.
In terms of practical effect, it means that
when a multiple citizen is in the country of
one of his or her nationalities, that country
has the right to treat that person as if he or
she were solely a citizen or national of that
country. This includes the right to impose
military service obligations, or to require an
exit permit to leave. The dual citizen cannot
therefore seek exemption from military
service against his other country of
nationality.
JZE: Master nationality depends on where
you are situated. If you are situated in State
A, it has the right to treat that your master
nationality is in State A. Without really
considering that he is a citizen of State B. So
for example, gikuha ka ni State A sa military
to fight against State B. That person cannot
refuse, and cannot seek exemption.
Article 6. Without prejudice to the liberty of
a State to accord wider rights to renounce its
nationality, a person possessing two
nationalities acquired without any voluntary
act on his part may renounce one of them
with the authorisation of the State whose
nationality he desires to surrender. This
authorisation may not be refused in the case
of a person who has his habitual and
principal residence abroad, if the conditions
laid down in the law of the State whose
nationality he desires to surrender are
satisfied.
JZE: Kani siya tong murag tagaan kag
permiso sa one of your states in a
multinationality, to lose nationality.
Remember how do you lose your US
citizenship? So read that194 to 203 of your
book.
CHAPTER 4
NATIONALITY OF CHILDREN
Article 12. Rules of law which confer
nationality by reason of birth on the territory
of a State shall not apply automatically to
children born to persons enjoying diplomatic
immunities in the country where the birth
occurs. The law of each State shall permit
children of consuls de carrire, or of officials
of foreign States charged with official
missions by their Governments, to become
divested, by repudiation or otherwise, of the
nationality of the State in which they were
born, in any case in which on birth they
acquired dual nationality, provided that they
retain the nationality of their parents
JZE: Example you were born in US Embassy.
Remember, US embassies are part of the
territory or extension of the territory of the
US ina foreign country. So dili automatic.
Article 13. Naturalisation of the parents shall
confer on such of their children as, according
to its law, are minors the nationality of the
State by which the naturalisation is granted.
In such case the law of that State may specify
the conditions governing the acquisition of
its nationality by the minor children as a
result of the naturalisation of the parents. In
cases where minor children do not acquire
the nationality of their parents as the result
of the naturalisation of the latter, they shall
retain their existing nationality.
RA 9225
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The
unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18)
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this
Act shall be deemed citizenship of the
Philippines.
JZE: Kung minor, automatic. If age of
majority dili automatic but you can elect the
nationality of your parent.
Article 14. A child whose parents are both
unknown shall have the nationality of the
country of birth. If the child's parentage is
established, its nationality shall be
determined by the rules applicable in cases
where the parentage is known. A foundling
is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to
have been born on the territory of the State
in which it was found.
JZE: So what is the nationality of a foundling?
Under the Hague convention = jus soli.
Wherever you are found, thats your
citizenship. But what about in the PH? We
follow jus sanguinis.
CITIZENSHIP OF FOUNDLINGS
Note that, in the case of POE-LLAMANZARES
vs. COMELEC, March 8, 2016, foundlings in
the Philippines are considered natural-born
Filipino citizen.
Read this case extensively, including the
dissenting, concurring and separate
opinions.
JZE: In this case, they had to consult
statistics.
Justice Carpio suggested that DNA testing
should have been used.
Article 15. Where the nationality of a State is
not acquired automatically by reason of birth
on its territory, a child born on the territory
of that State of parents having no
nationality, or of unknown nationality, may
obtain the nationality of the said State. The
law of that State shall determine the
conditions governing the acquisition of its
nationality in such cases.
JZE: MAY ha! Dili automatic na itreat ka as
natural born citizen.
Article 16. If the law of the State, whose
nationality an illegitimate child possesses,
recognises that such nationality may be lost
as a consequence of a change in the civil
status of the child (legitimation,
recognition), such loss shall be conditional
on the acquisition by the child of the
nationality of another State under the law of
such State relating to the effect upon
nationality of changes in civil status.
JZE: I do not understand this but just read
this.
CHAPTER V
ADOPTION
Article 17. If the law of a State recognises
that its nationality may be lost as the result
of adoption, this loss shall be conditional
upon the acquisition by the person adopted
of the nationality of the person by whom he
is adopted, under the law of the State of
which the latter is a national relating to the
effect of adoption upon nationality.
CITIZENSHIP AND PH BASKETBALL
Eligibility for players
All players have to be natural -born Filipinos.
Persons who chose Filipino citizenship by the
age of maturity are considered as natural-
born citizens.
Filipino-foreigners have the same
requirements as locals except they must
have documents from the Department of
Justice and the Bureau of Immigration
proving their Filipino citizenship.
For Coaches
The rule is that coaches should be Filipino
citizens.
But why is it that we have foreign coaches in
the PBA?
READ: GENERAL MILLING CORP vs RUBEN
TORRES (April 22, 1991)
Basketball Coaches Associatio of the
Philippin ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of
said alien employment permit to the
respondent Secretary of Labor who, on 23
April 1990, issued a decision ordering
cancellation of petitioner Cone's
employment permit on the ground that
there was no showing that there is no person
in the Philippines who is competent, able
and willing to perform the services required
nor that the hiring of petitioner Cone would
redound to the national interest.
HELD: The Secretary of Labor is correct. The
SC did not overturn the Secretarys factual
determinations.
The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940,
Section 13(a) of the Act allows husbands of
Philippine citizens to be admitted as
permanent residents.
The SC ruling is no longer applicable because
Cone and Black later married Filipinas.
But based on GMC vs. TORRES, foreigners
cannot otherwise coach in the Philippines.
Clarkson is a dual Philippine and American
citizen, the former by virtue of ancestral
descent. His father Mike Clarkson is African-
American, while his mother Annette Davis is
of half Filipino descent and was born in.
Pampanga.

Because his mom is considered a Filipino

(born of a Filipino parent), SBP claims that,
because children born of Filipino mothers
are Filipinos, Clarkson can play for the
Philippine National Team.

He was part of the lineup of the PH team for

Olympic qualifying tournament.

FIBA RULES

FIBA allows one naturalized player to plat 1

ol-die national team of each country. The
rest of the teams must be locals.

FIBA will accept a dual citizen as a local for as

long as he or she represents only one
country and acquired the passport of the
country of representation before turning 16.