INTRODUCTION 1.

To provide rules in deciding cases where either the parties, events or

A. Conflict of Laws defined.
That part of municipal law of a State which directs its courts and
administrative agencies, when confronted with a legal problem involving a
foreign element, whether or not they should apply a foreign law/s. (Paras)
transactions are linked to more than one state jurisdiction;
2. To promote stability and uniformity of remedies / solutions regardless of
place of suit.
D. Distinguish Conflict of Laws from Public International Law

It is that part of law which comes into play when the issue before the court a. As to persons involved:
affects some fact, event or transaction that is so clearly connected with a
foreign system of Iaw as to necessitate recourse to that system (Cheshire, PIL: Governs sovereign states and entities that are internationally
Private lnternational Law, 1947 ed., p. 6). recognized or possessed of international personality

*Foreign element - a factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is CoL: Governs private individuals and corporations
thus affected by the diverse laws of two or more states

Note: Conflict of laws is NOT part of international law. Although it is b. As to nature:

sometimes thought of as part of international law because of the presence PIL: International in character
of a foreign element in a given problem, it is not international law in CoL: Municipal in character
character but is part of the municipal law of each state. By municipal law in
Conflict of Laws is meant the internal or local law of each state.
c. As to transactions involved:
B. Elements of Conflict of Laws
PIL: Applies only to transactions in which only sovereign states or entities
1. Conflict of Laws is part of the municipal law of the State; with international personality are concerned and which generally affect
2. There is a directive to courts and administrative agencies; public interest
CoL: Deals with transactions strictly private in nature, in which the country
3. There is a legal problem involving a foreign element; and as such has generally no interest.

4. There is either an application or non-application of a foreign law or d. As to remedies applied:

foreign laws.
Nature of Conflicts Rules: It is a part of the national law of every state.
NOTE: A factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected
by diverse laws of two or more States is said to contain a foreign element.
PIL:
CoL: Recourse is had to judicial or administrative tribunals in accordance
with the rules of procedure .of the country where they sit (Resort to
municipal tribunals).

C. Importance of Conflict of Laws

e. As to sources

1
PIL: Custom, Treaty and General Principles of law, recognized by civilized
nations and juridical decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists
CoL: Generally derived from the internal law of the state; except any
conflict of law question governed by a treaty (e.g. Hague Convention on
the Conflicts of law relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions)
CHOICE OF LAW
A. Foreign Law has no extraterritorial effect; exceptions.
GENERAL RULE: Law of one country has no application and force in
another country. Philippine laws have no extraterritorial effect.
EXCEPTION: Consent: when our laws provide extraterritorial effect to our
laws with respect to citizens and nationals (e.g. extraterritoriality principle
of RPC)
**But now in PRIL, foreign laws and foreign judgments may be given force
and effect in our country, because of the growing inter-dependence of
states and on basis of the principle of comity
AGPALO:
GENERALLY. As a rule, the choice is between a substantive foreign law
and the substantive local law of the country where the case is filed, as it is
settled that the procedural steps and requirements of the law of the latter,
relative to the filing and enforcement of the cause of action are followed.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. As an admitted international principle, a nation possesses and exercises
within its own territory an absolute and exclusive jurisdiction, and that any
exception to this right must be traced to the consent of the nation.
2. The consent to the extraterritorial application of a foreign law in our
country may be expressly given, such as in the form of local law adopting
a foreign law.
3. The consent may also be by the Philippines’ entering into a treaty or
adhering to an international convention.
4. The consent may also be implied, as in the observance of the principles
of comity.
B. Characterization and points of contacts or connecting factors.
Characterization (Doctrine of Qualification) - process of deciding whether
or not the facts relate (refer to the connecting factors) to the kind of
question specified in a conflicts rule; to enable the forum to select the
proper law
Characterization or the Doctrine of Qualification: It is the process wherein,
before a choice of law is made, it is necessary to determine what category
a certain set of facts or rules fall. It is the process of deciding whether or
not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule.
PURPOSE: to enable the court of the forum to select the proper law
The starting point of analysis is a factual situation, event, or operative fact.
An essential element of conflict of rules is the indication of a “test” or
“connecting factor” or “point of contact” which could be any of the
following:
1. The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of
sojourn, or his origin;
2. The seat of a legal or juridical person,
3. The situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is or is deemed to
be situated.
4. The place where an act was been done, the locus actus. The lex loci
actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;
5. The place where an act is intended to come into effect;
6. The intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern
their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;
2
7. The place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or
done. The lex fori — the law of the forum — is particularly important
because matters of procedure not going to the substance of the claim
involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the
content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from
application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the
exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and
8. The flag of the ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all
legal relationships of the ship and of the master or owner of such.
C. Choice of applicable law
The choice of law seeks to answer two important questions:
1. What legal system should control a given situation where some of the
significant facts occurred in two or more states; and
2. To what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
U.S. Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws 2ed suggests the
following principles in determining the applicable law:
§6 Choice-of-Law Principles.
(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory
directive of its own state on choice of law.
(2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of
law of the applicable rule of law include:
(a) The needs the interstate and international systems,
(b) The relevant policies of the forum,
(c) The relevant policies of the other interested states and the relative
interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue,
(d) The protection of justified expectations,
(e) The basic policies underlying the particular field of law,
(f) Certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and
(g) Case in the determination and application of the law to be applied.
The parties may stipulate as to what law should govern in case of dispute
arising from their contract, in the absence of prohibitive law or public policy
providing otherwise.
Section 187 of the U.S. Restatement of the Law, Second, Conflict of Laws
2d which may have persuasive effect in our country, reads:
§187. Law of the State Chosen by the Parties.
(1) The law of the State chose by the parties to govern their contractual
rights and duties will be applied if the particular issue is one which the
parties could have resolved by an explicit provision in their agreement
directed to that issue.
(2) The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual
rights and duties will be applied, even if the particular issue is one which
the parties could not have resolved by an explicit provision in their
agreement directed to that issue, unless either:
(a) The chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the
transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties’ choice,
or
(b) Application of the law of the chosen state would be contrary to a
fundamental policy of the state which has materially greater interest that
the chosen state in the determination of a particular issue and which,
under the rule of §188, would be the state of the applicable law in the
absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.
(3) In the absence of a contrary indication of intention, the reference is to
the local law of the state of the chosen law.
Two principles for determining personal law applicable to the person:
1. Domiciliary rule — which makes the domicile of the person as the
determining factor (followed by AngloAmerican countries).
3
2. Nationality rule — which makes the citizenship or nationality of the
person as the basis for determining his personal law (followed by the
Philippines).
The provision adopts nationality or citizenship as the basis for determining
the personal laws of an individual, which are Philippine laws relating to
family rights and duties, to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons, and which follow him wherever he may be, in the Philippines or
abroad.
Article 16 of the New Civil Code embodies the doctrine of lex loci or lex
loci rei sitae. It directs that where the property is situated in the Philippines,
then Philippine laws apply to the given case, but where the property is
situated in a foreign country, then the latter’s law applies.
The first paragraph of Article 17 of the New Civil Code embodies the rule
of lex loci contractus or the law of the place of execution of the contract,
wills and other public documents and governs the forms and solemnities
thereof.
Where a party to a contract executed in a country where by its law he has
the capacity to enter into such contract but does not possess such
capacity in the place of performance thereof, it has been held that he
cannot plead such lack of capacity to defeat the contract.
Where the Philippine law is silent on any given case, Philippine courts are
not justified to extend the force and effect of foreign law. To do so would
be to incorporate into our statutes the foreign law by judicial ruling which is
beyond the authority of the courts do. Thus, no foreign law may or should
interfere with the operation and application of Philippine laws. There are
however exceptions to the rule:
1. One is when the Philippine legislature, by law, has given its consent to
the extension of a specific law to the Philippines.
2. When Congress enacts a law adopting or copying a specific foreign
statute.
3. Borrowing statute — a statue which directs the court of the forum to
apply the foreign statute to the pending claims based on a foreign law.
D. Agreement by Parties not covered by Jurisdiction
The parties to the contract may stipulate as to the applicable foreign law to
govern their dispute arising from the contract.
As a rule, what the parties have stipulated are binding and preclude them
from applying another law or instituting the action in a place other than as
stipulated.
The choice of law must bear some relationship to the parties or their
transaction, otherwise the agreement as to the law chosen is invalid or it
will not be respected in the forum court.
The parties MAY STIPULATE in their agreement as to the APPLICABLE
LAW and VENUE OF ACTION, in the event of dispute and litigation arising
therefrom, and if there are some minimum contacts with the law of the
chosen forum, Philippine courts where the action is filed may refuse to
assume jurisdiction and dismiss the action without prejudice to filing the
same in the chosen forum.
E. Where there is no agreement as to applicable law
In the absence of effective choice of law by the parties, Section 188 of the
U.S. Restatement of Law, Second, Conflict of Laws 2ed may be of
persuasive effect. It reads: §188. Law Governing in Absence of Effective
Choice by the Parties:
(1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract
are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that
issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the
parties under the principle stated in §6.
(2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties, the contacts
to be taken into account in applying the principles of $6 to determine the
law applicable to an issue include:
(a) The place of contracting,
4
(b) The place of negotiation of the contract;
(c) The place of performance;
(d) The location of the subject matter of the contract; and
(e) The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties.
3) If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are
in the same state, the local law of this state will usually be applied,
exception as otherwise provided in $189–203.
F. Applicable foreign law determined by rules of conflict of laws
The principles often applied in determining what law should govern the
resolution by the court of a conflict-of-law case filed in the forum include:
a. Substance versus procedural principle
General rule, all matters of procedure are governed by the law of the
forum, where the case is filed, while matters of substance are governed by
the law of the country where the cause of action arose.
The rule of characterization does not apply where the country in which the
case is filed has a borrowing law, as in our country, which states that if the
cause of action in the country where the cause arose has prescribed, it will
also be considered as having prescribed in our country even when local
law has a longer period of prescription.
b. Center of gravity doctrine (synonymous with the most significant
relationship theory; also known as grouping of contacts principle)
Choice of law problems in conflict of law are resolved by the application of
the law of the jurisdiction which has the most significant relationship to or
contact with event and parties to litigation and the issue therein.
The most significant rule or the grouping of contacts principle is generally
applied when the acts or contacts or series of acts or contracts occur in
more than two countries, not one of which is of sufficient significance to
determine the law applicable or the place where the action is to be filed, so
that there is need to group them together and from which determination is
done.
In applying the principle to determine the State which has the most
significant relationship, the following contacts are to be taken into account
and evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the
particular issue:
1. The place where the injury occurred;
2. The place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
3. The domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties; and
4. The place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered.
G. Illustration of renvoi doctrine
A doctrine under which court in resorting to foreign law adopts rules of
foreign country as to conflict of law, which may rule in turn refer to back to
the law of the forum.
"Renvoi" is a French word which means "refer back" or "return". ln Anglo-
American countries, the term used is "remission", which means to refer a
matter for consideration or judgment.
The case referred to above is the first case decided by our Supreme Court
which raised the "renvoi" problem.
The facts of the case are: The deceased Edward Christensen was a
California citizen who had resided in the Philippines for a long time prior to
his death; hence, a domiciliary of the Philippines. In his will, he left almost
his entire estate to Lucy, an acknowledged natural child in California, and
gave a small legacy to Helen, an acknowledged natural child in the
Philippines. Under California internal law, its deceased citizen may
dispose of his estate by -ill in any manner he pleases, However, California
law also provides that where its deceased citizen resides in another
5
country, the law of his domicile should determine his succession. Thus,
while Lucy contended that the will of the deceased should be given effect
following California internal law, Helen insisted that Philippine law, the law
of the domicile of the deceased, should be applied, under which she is a
forced heir and is entitled to a legitime.
The ruling: Recognizing that there \r/ere two sets of rules under California
internal law, one for its citizens who reside there and another for its
citizens who reside in other jurisdictions, the Supreme Court held that if it
should refer the matter to California law, said law will toss the problem
back to us, which would result in international football. Hence. we should
apply Philippine law, (the law of deceased’s domicile) as directed by the
conflicts rules of California, especially as Philippine laws makes
acknowledged natural children forced heirs of the parents recognizing
them, while California law provides no legitime for such children. As a
result, Helen a Filipino child, was given a legitime.
Note: The Supreme Court’s ruling was obviously intended to favor the
Filipino child.
H. Illustration of borrowing statute
Borrowing statute — a statue which directs the court of the forum to apply
the foreign statute to the pending claims based on a foreign law.
I. Conflict between foreign law and local law; the latter prevails.
Caver’s principle
Where there is no conflict of law rules, in the forum, the court applies
general principles to arrive at just solutions by accommodating conflicting
policies and affording fair treatment of the parties caught in the conflict
between state policies. The absence of conflict of laws rule in the forum
does not justify the court from declining to render judgment.
The court faced with conflict of laws case, has to decide the same by
applying:  First, the written laws;  Second, the customs of the place; 
Third, by judicial decisions;  Fourth, general principles of law; and 
Fifth, principles of justice, reason and equity, in view of the circumstances
of the case.
J. Exceptions to application of foreign law
A foreign law may be given territorial effect and application in the
resolution of a case involving foreign elements, filed in the country,
because:
1. Local law directs that it be applied in a given case;
2. The parties have stipulated that a specific foreign law be applied to
govern in case of dispute arising from their contract;
3. A treaty or convention to which the country has adhered requires that a
foreign law be applied; or
4. The rules of conflict of laws point to the application of a foreign law.
Exceptions to the rule:
1. A foreign law will not be applied if it contravenes prohibitive law or public
policy of the forum.
2. The agreement stipulating the specific law as the applicable law may
not be enforced when the relationship of the contracting parties affects
public interest in the country of one of the parties, or the substantial
contacts arising therefrom point to the law of another country as applicable
law, or such agreement contravenes the prohibitive law or the public policy
of the forum. Where the local law or the international convention to which
the country adhered specifies the applicable law, any agreement between
the parties stipulating a different law as the applicable law is invalid or will
not be respected.
3. The situs of the real property is fixed and irremovable, which is the
place where it is situated. On the other hand, personal property may be
transferred or removed from one country to another by its owner, except
certain personal property which the law considers it as having a fixed situs.
In view of Article 16 of the Civil Code, any foreign law sought to be applied
6
in a conflict of laws case in the country contrary thereto may not be
enforced.
4. Where a foreign law, foreign judgment or contract is contrary to a sound
and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment
or contract shall not be applied.
5. Even when a foreign law is the applicable law in a given conflict of law
case, its application is limited only to substantive law which is the basis of
the cause of action, and does not extend to procedural law.
The test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial
process for enforcing really regulates and duties recognized by
substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a
disregard or infraction thereof.
The parties cannot, by entering into an agreement, change the procedure
prescribed by the law of the forum.
6. Foreign penal laws have no extraterritorial application in the Philippines.
As a rule, penal laws of one country are obligatory only within its
jurisdiction.
K. Proof and authentication of foreign law
When a party involves a foreign law as basis for his cause of action or
defense, or when he relies on foreign document to support his claim or
defense, and such law or judgment is not contrary to local law or public
policy, he has to allege and prove the same, as any other fact. His failure
to do so may give rise to the presumption that the foreign law is similar to
Philippine law on the matter, or in the case of foreign document, the same
will not be admissible in evidence.
Where there is conflict between foreign law upon which the cause of action
or defense is founded, one hand, and local law of the forum under which
no valid cause of action or defense may accrue, on the other hand, the
latter prevails and will result in the dismissal of the action or the rejection
of the defense.
Foreign laws do not prove themselves in the country, nor can the courts
take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
proved.
The general rule is that foreign documents, before they can be admitted in
evidence in our courts, must be duly authenticated.
Public documents are generally irremovable from where they are official
kept. For this reason, public documents to be used as evidence may be
evidenced by any of the following:
1. By any official publication thereof; or
2. By certified true copy or one attested by the officer having the legal
custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if not kept in the
Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has custody.
3. If the office in which the record is kept in a foreign country, a copy of the
document should have a certificate made by a secretary of the embassy or
legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any
officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign
country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his
office.
To be admissible in evidence, copy of the foreign law must comply with the
following requirements:
1. An official publication containing the foreign law must be submitted;
2. If no official publication can be submitted, the copy of the foreign law
must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by
his deputy; and the same must be accompanied by a certificate of a
secretary of embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consular or
consular agent or foreign service officer of the Philippines, with the seal of
the office and duly ribboned.
L. Rules on Electronic Evidence
M. Exceptions to non-judicial cognizance of foreign laws
7
The general rule is that Philippine courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of foreign laws, except:
1. Where there are exceptional circumstances when the foreign laws are
already within the actual knowledge of the court;
2. Where the courts are familiar with the specific foreign laws;
3. When a foreign law, such as that of the Nevada law, was proved in
accordance with the Section 24 and 25 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court
and introduced as evidence in the probate of the will of a citizen of
Nevada, such circumstances justified the Court to take judicial notice of
said foreign law in another case involving the partition of the estate or the
decedent, even though the provisions of said law were not presented in
the form and manner provided by the Rules of Court, where the adverse
party did not dispute the quoted provisions of the said law of Nevada.
4. Specialized quasi-judicial agencies may take judicial notice of foreign
law, even if the foreign law has not been alleged and proved because the
general rule applies only to cases filed in courts and not to cases before
administrative or quasi-judicial bodies which, by reason of their mandated
functions, have become familiar with the applicable foreign laws
CITIZENSHIP AND DOMICILE
A. Citizenship
1. Importance of Nationality and Domicile
IMPORTANCE OF NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE.
Citizenship and nationality are synonymous and are interchangeably used.
A person may be a citizen of one country, but he may be domiciled in
another state or country.
Article 15 of the New Civil Code provides that, “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.”
Article 16, second paragraph, of the New Civil Code states that, “interstate
and testamentary succession, 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 maybe the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property
may be found.”
Nationality law refers to the private law of the state of which the
descendent was a citizen.
If an alien is required to renounce his citizenship before he could be
allowed to take his oath as a Filipino in his petition for naturalization, the
renunciation must be in accordance with his national law and not by that of
the Philippines.
Domiciliary principle – the status or condition of a person and the relation
in which he stands to other persons are fixed by the law of the domicile,
and the status so fixed is recognized and upheld in every other state, so
far is consistent with its own laws and policy.
2. Citizenship
Citizenship is membership in a political community which is personal and
more or less permanent in character.
Nationality is membership in any class or form of political community.
Thus, nationals may be citizens [if members of a democratic community]
or subjects [if members of a monarchical community]. Nationality does not
necessarily include the right or privilege of exercising civil or political
rights.
Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:
a) By birth i) jus sanguinis ii) jus soli
b) By naturalization
c) By marriage
8
Attack on one’s citizenship may be made only through a direct, not a
collateral proceeding [Co v. HRET, 199 SCRA 692].
Res judicata in cases involving citizenship. The doctrine of res judicata
does not ordinarily apply to questions of citizenship. It does so only A
person’s 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 party’s
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].
3. Who are citizens of the Philippines (Sec. 1, Art. 4, 1987 Constitution)
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
4. Election of Citizenship (Sec. 1[3], Art. 4, 1987 Constitution)
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, Ching’s 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
9
right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a
positive act of electing Philippine citizenship.
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.
5. Two kinds of Citizens
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]
Two ways of acquiring citizenship: by birth, and by naturalization. These
two ways corresponds to two kinds of citizenship: natural born and
naturalized.
A person who at the tie of birth is a citizen of a particular country, is a
natural citizen thereof.
Section 2 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution defines who natural-born
citizens are.
Included as natural-born citizens are those before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.
6. Dual Citizens
* Dual citizenship refers to the possession of two citizenships by an
individual, that of his original citizenship and that of the country where he
became a naturalized citizen. It may also arise in an instance wherein a
person was born of Filipino parents but in another country where said
country follows jus soli or jus loci principle.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the continued allegiance of a
naturalized citizen to their mother country even after acquiring Filipino
citizenship.
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
10
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. Loss of Citizenship
a) Bv naturalization in a foreign country. See Frivaldo v. Comelec,
174SCRA245.
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:
I ________________, 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
11
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
apply 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
12
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.
8. Re-acquisition and Reacquisition of Filipino citizenship (RA No.
9225)
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 Aquino’s
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
13
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
repatriatioin 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.
9. Citizenship by Naturalization
Naturalization is 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; and
c) 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
14
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 born 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].
15
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 applicant’s 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 Governmentannounced 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 parent’s 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 parent’s 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:
16
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
17
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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s 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 applicant’s
alien certificate of registration, applicant’s 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.
B. Domicile
1. Domicile defined.
2. Kinds of Domicile.
3. Rules regarding Domicile.
In the case of Romualdez vs. RTC (226 SCRA 408) the Court explained
how one acquires a new domicile by choice. There must concur: (1)
residence or bodily presence in the new locality; (2) intention to remain
there; and (3) intention to abandon the old domicile. In other words there
must basically be animus manendi with animus non revertendi. When
respondent chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled with her
intention to stay there by registering as a voter there and expressly
declaring that she is a resident of that place, she is deemed to have
abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent her childhood and school
days, as her place of domicile.
4. Domicile of Wife and Minor Children.
5. Domicile and Residence distinguished.
18
Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or the exercise of civil rights
and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is
their place of habitual residence." In Ong vs. Republic 20 this court took
the concept of domicile to mean an individual's "permanent home", "a
place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends
to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they
disclose intent." Based on the foregoing, domicile includes the twin
elements of "the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and
animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently.
Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an
individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a
given area, community or country. The essential distinction between
residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent to leave
when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends.
One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health.
If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to
leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is thus, quite
perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences in various
places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for
various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another
domicile of choice. In Uytengsu vs. Republic, we laid this distinction quite
clearly:
There is a difference between domicile and residence. "Residence" is
used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary;
"domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent,
one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one
place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is
residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man
can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may
have numerous places of residence. His place of residence is generally his
place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily so since no length
of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile.
6. Domicile and Residence for Political Purposes
In Aquino v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 400, it was held that Agapito Aquino
failed to prove that he had established not just residence but domicile of
choice in Makati. In his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 elections, he
indicated that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac, for 52
years; he was a registered voter of the same district; his birth certificate
places Concepcion, Tarlac, as birthplace. Thus, his domicile of origin was
Concepcion, Tarlac; and his bare assertion of transfer of domicile from
Tarlac to Makati is hardly supported by the facts of the case. [NOTE: Read
the Theory of Legal Imnossibilitv. enunciated in Justice Francisco’s
concurring and dissenting opinion.]
In election cases, the term "residence" has always been considered as
synonymous with "domicile" which imports not only the intention to reside
in a fixed place but also personal presence in-that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a fixed permanent
residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like
reasons, one intends to return. (Perfecto Faypon vs. Eliseo Quirino, 96
Phil 294; Romualdez vs. RTC-Tacloban, 226 SCRA 408). In respondent's
case, when she returned to the Philippines in 1991, the residence she
chose was not Tacloban but San Juan, Metro Manila. Thus, her animus
revertendi is pointed to Metro Manila and not Tacloban.
7. Domicile and Venue
In Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300, the Court
upheld the qualification of Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos (IRM), despite
her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in
the district for only seven months, because of the following: (i) A minor
follows the domicile of his parents; Tacloban became IRM’s domicile of
origin by operation of law when her father brought the family to Leyte; (ii)
Domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of
domicile, a bonafide intention of abandoning the former residence and
establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose; in
the absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the
domicile of origin should be deemed to continue; (iii) The wife does not
automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term “residence” in
Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when IRM
19
married Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained
a new home, not a domicilium necessarium, (iv) Even assuming that she
gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired the right to choose
a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her return to the
country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as
her domicile of choice.

20