CITIZENSHIP CASES

EDISON SO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, January 29, 2007

Callejo, J.

Ratio Decidendi: A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the
decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata.

In naturalization proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show full and
complete compliance with the requirements of the law.

Nature of case: Petition for Naturalization

Issues:
In determining whether or not an applicant for naturalization is entitled to become a Filipino
citizen, it is necessary to resolve the following issues:
(1) WON R.A. No. 9139 applies to petitions for naturalization by judicial act; and
(2) WON the witnesses presented by petitioner are credible in accordance with the
jurisprudence and the definition and guidelines set forth in C.A. No. 473.

Ruling:
The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a
nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws,
there are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization:
(a) Administrative naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139;
(b) Judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as amended; and
(c) Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine
citizenship to an alien.

Petitioner’s contention that the qualifications an applicant for naturalization should possess are
those provided for in R.A. No. 9139 and not those set forth in C.A. No. 473 is barren of merit.

The qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization by judicial act are set
forth in Sections 2 and 4 of C.A. No. 473. On the other hand, Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 9139
provide for the qualifications and disqualifications of an applicant for naturalization
by administrative act.

Indeed, R.A. No. 9139 was enacted as a remedial measure intended to make the process of
acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging. It likewise
addresses the concerns of degree holders who, by reason of lack of citizenship requirement,
cannot practice their profession, thus promoting “brain gain” for the Philippines.[51] These
however, do not justify petitioner’s contention that the qualifications set forth in said law apply
even to applications for naturalization by judicial act.

First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws — the former covers all aliens
regardless of class while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived here in the Philippines all
their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who
have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the customs and
traditions. To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to make the
process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more encouraging
which is administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature believes that
there is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines, there is nothing from which
it can be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed by R.A. No. 9139.
What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine
citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is that, a native
born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization, subject to the
prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.

In the instant case, petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, though at the time of the
filing of his petition, administrative naturalization under R.A. No. 9139 was already available.
Consequently, his application should be governed by C.A. No. 473.

Second. If the qualifications prescribed in R.A. No. 9139 would be made applicable even to
judicial naturalization, the coverage of the law would be broadened since it would then apply
even to aliens who are not native born. It must be stressed that R.A. No. 9139 applies only to
aliens who were born in the Philippines and have been residing here.

Third. Applying the provisions of R.A. No. 9139 to judicial naturalization is contrary to the
intention of the legislature to liberalize the naturalization procedure in the country. One of the
qualifications set forth in R.A. No. 9139 is that the applicant was born in the
Philippines and should have been residing herein since birth. Thus, one who was born here but
left the country, though resided for more than ten (10) years from the filing of the application is
also disqualified. On the other hand, if we maintain the distinct qualifications under each of the
two laws, an alien who is not qualified under R.A. No. 9139 may still be naturalized under C.A.
No. 473.

Thus, absent a specific provision expressly amending C.A. No. 473, the law stands and the
qualifications and disqualifications set forth therein are maintained.

In any event, petitioner failed to prove that the witnesses he presented were competent to
vouch for his good moral character, and are themselves possessed of good moral character. It
must be stressed that character witnesses in naturalization proceedings stand as insurers of the
applicant’s conduct and character. Thus, they ought to testify on specific facts and events
justifying the inference that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law.
Petitioner’s witnesses, Atty. Adasa and Salcedo, did not testify on his specific acts; they did not
elaborate on his traits. Their testimonies do not convince the Court that they personally know
petitioner well and are therefore in a position to vouch for his qualifications. As correctly found
by the CA, the witnesses’ testimonies consisted mainly of general statements in answer to the
leading questions propounded by his counsel.

In sum, petitioner’s witnesses clearly did not personally know him well enough; their testimonies
do not satisfactorily establish that petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications prescribed by law.

In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good
moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible
persons. Within the purview of the naturalization law, a “credible person” is not only an
individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and
has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not
incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. This
implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be
honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be
taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the applicant’s worthiness.

The records likewise do not show that the character witnesses of petitioner are persons of good
standing in the community; that they are honest and upright, or reputed to be trustworthy and
reliable. The most that was established was the educational attainment of the witnesses;
however, this cannot be equated with their credibility. In fine, petitioner focused on presenting
evidence tending to build his own good moral character and neglected to establish the
credibility and good moral character of his witnesses.

As to petitioner’s argument that respondent is precluded from questioning the RTC decision
because of its failure to oppose the petition, the Court did not agree.

A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision

rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be
cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the court
upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of
naturalization upon grounds or conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate. If
the government can challenge a final grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the
decision of the RTC within the reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition
before the lower court.

Thus, petitioner failed to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of
naturalization law. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying the petition for
naturalization without prejudice.

It must be stressed that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the
Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that should not be
conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with the law.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GO PEI HUNG, April 04, 2018

Del Castillo, J.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
A Petition for Naturalization must be denied when full and complete compliance with the
requirements of Commonwealth Act. No. 473 (CA 473), or the Revised Naturalization Law, is not
shown.

Nature of Case

Issues:
In the present Petition, it is argued that —

The petition for naturalization should not [have been] granted because:
i. respondent did not file his declaration of intention with the OSG;
ii. respondent did not state the details of his arrival in the Philippines in his petition and the
certificate of arrival was not attached to the petition.;
iii. respondent is not engaged in a lucrative profession, trade or occupation; and
 iv. respondent failed to present during hearing qualified character witnesses as required
under CA No. 473

Ruling:
The Court grants the Petition.

In Republic v. Huang Te Fu,13 a case decided by this ponente, the following pronouncement was
made:

In Republic v. Hong, it was held in essence that an applicant for naturalization must show full
and complete compliance with the requirements of the naturalization law; otherwise, his petition
for naturalization will be denied. This ponente has likewise held that "[t]he courts must always
be mindful that naturalization proceedings are imbued with the highest public interest.
Naturalization laws should he rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government
and against the applicant. The burden of proof rests upon the applicant to show full and
complete compliance with the requirements of law."

Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among others, that an applicant
for naturalization must attach a Certificate of Arrival to the Petition for Naturalization:

Section 7. Petition for citizenship. – Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall
file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the
petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and former places of residence; his
occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and the father of children,
the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of the children; the approximate date
of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he
remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came XXX

In Republic v. Judge De la Rosa,15 this Court held that the failure to attach a copy of the
applicant's certificate of arrival to the petition as required by Section 7 of CA 473 is fatal to an
applicant's petition for naturalization.

The Certificate of Arrival should prove that respondent's entry to the country is lawful. Without
it, his Petition for Naturalization is incomplete and must be denied outright.

Even if respondent acquired permanent resident status, this does not do away with the
requirement of said certificate of arrival. An application to become a naturalized Philippine
citizen involves requirements different and separate from that for permanent residency here.

Respondent likewise argues that the required certificate of arrival is a "mere component part in
the filing of the Declaration of Intention"19 and thus unnecessary since he is exempt from
submitting the latter document. This is not correct. The Declaration of Intention is entirely
different from the Certificate of Arrival; the latter is just as important because it proves that the
applicant's entry to the country was not illegal - that he was a documented alien whose arrival
and presence in the country is in good faith and with evident intention to submit to and abide
by the laws of the Republic. Certainly, an illegal and surreptitious entry into the country by aliens
whose undocumented arrival constitutes a threat to national security and the safety of its
citizens may not be rewarded later on with citizenship by naturalization or otherwise; to repeat,
a spring will not rise higher than its source.

On the issue of petitioner's alleged failure to attach the required annexes to the copy of the
instant Petition that was sent to respondent, this is rendered insignificant and moot by the fact
that respondent's application for naturalization - which is patently defective for failure to attach
the required certificate of arrival - involves the national interest, as well as the security and safety
of the country and its citizens. Any procedural infirmities in this case are superseded by the
national interest. "[T]echnicalities take a backseat against substantive rights, and not the other
way around."

Strict compliance with all statutory requirements is necessary before an applicant may acquire
Philippine citizenship by naturalization. The absence of even a single requirement is fatal to an
application for naturalization.

In naturalization proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the applicant to show full and
complete compliance with the requirements of the law. The opportunity of a foreigner to
become a citizen by naturalization is a mere matter of grace, favor or privilege extended to him
by the State; the applicant does not possess any natural, inherent, existing or vested right to be
admitted to Philippine citizenship. The only right that a foreigner has, to be given the chance to
become a Filipino citizen, is that which the statute confers upon him; and to acquire such right,
he must strictly comply with ail the statutory conditions and requirements. The absence of one
jurisdictional requirement is fatal to the petition as this necessarily results in the dismissal or
severance of the naturalization process.

Hence, all other issues need not be discussed further as respondent failed to strictly follow the
requirement mandated by the statute.

It should be emphasized that 'a naturalization proceeding is so infused with public interest that
it has been differently categorized and given special treatment, x x x Unlike in ordinary judicial
contest, the granting of a petition for naturalization does not preclude the reopening of that
case and giving the government another opportunity to present new evidence. A decision or
order granting citizenship will not even constitute res judicata to any matter or reason
supporting a subsequent judgment cancelling the certification of naturalization already granted,
on the ground that it had been illegally or fraudulently procured. For the same reason, issues
even if not raised in the lower court may be entertained on appeal. As the matters brought to
the attention of this Court x x x involve facts contained in the disputed decision of the lower
court and admitted by the parties in their pleadings, the present proceeding may be considered
adequate for the purpose of determining the correctness or incorrectness of said decision, in the
light of the law and extant jurisprudence.'
Ultimately, respondent failed to prove full and complete compliance with the requirements of
the Naturalization Law. As such, his petition for naturalization must be denied without prejudice
to his right to re-file his application.21

Having disposed of the case in the foregoing manner, this Court finds no need to resolve the
other issues raised by the parties. With the finding that respondent's Petition for Naturalization
did not include the Certificate of Arrival as required by CA 473, as amended, the said Petition
should have been dismissed outright on that, sole ground.
Republic vs. Sagun, February 15, 2012
Villarama, J.

Ratio Decidendi: The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a
tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of
election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry.

Facts: Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a Chinese national, and Marta
Borromeo, a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City and did not elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after
getting married to Alex Sagun, she executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. Said document was notarized but was not recorded and registered with the Local
Civil Registrar of Baguio City.

In 2005, Sagun applied for a Philippine passport. Her application was denied due to the
citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she has
elected Philippine citizenship. Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of
Philippine citizenship averring that she was raised as a Filipino and she is a registered voter in
Baguio City and had voted in local and national elections as shown in the Voter Certification.
She asserted that by virtue of her positive acts, she has effectively elected Philippine citizenship
and such fact should be annotated on her record of birth so as to entitle her to the issuance of a
Philippine passport.

After hearing, the trial court granted the petition and declaring Sagun a Filipino citizen.

Petitioner, through the OSG, directly filed a petition for review on certiorari, pointing out that
while Sagun executed an oath of allegiance before a notary public, there was no affidavit of her
election of Philippine citizenship. Additionally, her oath of allegiance which was not registered
with the nearest local civil registry was executed when she was already 33 years old or 12 years
after she reached the age of majority.

Issues:

1. Is an action or proceeding for judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship procedurally and

jurisdictionally permissible?

2. Has Norma complied with the procedural requirements in the election of Philippine
citizenship?

Held:

1. No. There is no proceeding established by law, or the Rules for the judicial declaration of the
citizenship of an individual. There is no specific legislation authorizing the institution of a judicial
proceeding to declare that a given person is part of our citizenry. Clearly, it was erroneous for
the trial court to make a specific declaration of respondents’ Filipino citizenship as such
pronouncement was not within the courts competence.

2. When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing charter was the 1935
Constitution, which declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers are citizens of
the Philippines and elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Sec. 1, Art. IV
of the 1935 Constitution reads:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

xxxx
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
elect Philippine citizenship.

Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born
of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon
reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. Being a legitimate child,
respondents citizenship followed that of her father who is Chinese, unless upon reaching the
age of majority, she elects Philippine citizenship. For respondent to be considered a Filipino
citizen, she must have validly elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625, enacted pursuant to Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935
Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid election
of Philippine citizenship, to wit:

Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4), [S]ection
1, Article IV, of the Constitution shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by
the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines.

Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a
statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government
of the Philippines; and (3) registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the
nearest civil registry.

Furthermore, no election of Philippine citizenship shall be accepted for registration under C.A.
No. 625 unless the party exercising the right of election has complied with the requirements of
the Alien Registration Act of 1950. In other words, he should first be required to register as an
alien. Pertinently, the person electing Philippine citizenship is required to file a petition with the
Commission of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration) for the cancellation
of his alien certificate of registration based on his aforesaid election of Philippine citizenship and
said Office will initially decide, based on the evidence presented the validity or invalidity of said
election. Afterwards, the same is elevated to the Ministry (now Department) of Justice for final
determination and review.

It should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes the
direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts.
The special proceeding provided under Section 2, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on Cancellation
or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry, merely allows any interested party to file an action
for cancellation or correction of entry in the civil registry, i.e., election, loss and recovery of
citizenship, which is not the relief prayed for by the respondent.

Be that as it may, even if we set aside this procedural infirmity, still the trial courts conclusion
that respondent duly elected Philippine citizenship is erroneous since the records undisputably
show that respondent failed to comply with the legal requirements for a valid election.
Specifically, respondent had not executed a sworn statement of her election of Philippine
citizenship. The only documentary evidence submitted by respondent in support of her claim of
alleged election was her oath of allegiance, executed 12 years after she reached the age of
majority, which was unregistered. As aptly pointed out by the petitioner, even assuming
arguendo that respondents oath of allegiance suffices, its execution was not within a reasonable
time after respondent attained the age of majority and was not registered with the nearest civil
registry as required under Section 1 of C.A. No. 625. The phrase reasonable time has been
interpreted to mean that the election should be made generally within three (3) years from
reaching the age of majority. Moreover, there was no satisfactory explanation proffered by
respondent for the delay and the failure to register with the nearest local civil registry.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the procedural
requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot
assert that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitutes a
positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the
requirements for acquisition of citizenship by election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine
citizenship cannot take the place of election of Philippine citizenship. Hence, respondent cannot
now be allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship
when clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. As we held in Ching, the
prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking
process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine
citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having failed to comply
with the foregoing requirements, respondents’ petition before the trial court must be denied.
Maquiling vs. COMELEC, April 16, 2013
Sereno, CJ. (En Banc)

Ratio Decidendi