Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Tecson vs. Comelec G:R No. 161434. March 3, 2004

Facts:

This is the petition for disqualification against Ronald Allan Kelly Poe
(Fernando Poe Jr.) on the ground that FPJ made a material misrepresentation
in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen
when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother,
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish
national, being the son of Lorenzo Poe, a Spanish subject. Granting, Fornier
asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have
transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child
of an alien mother.

The allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on two assertions: (1)

Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his
marriage to Bessie Kelley and, (2) even if no such prior marriage had existed,
Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of FPJ.

Issue:

Whether or not Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (Fernando Poe Jr.) is a Natural
Born Filipino

Ruling:

Yes, Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (Fernando Poe Jr.) is a Natural Born Filipino.

The term natural-born citizens, is defined to include "those who are

citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Herein, the date, month and
year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August 1939 during the regime of the
1935 Constitution. Through its history, four modes of acquiring citizenship
naturalization, jus soli, res judicata and jus sanguinis had been in vogue.
Only two, jus soli and jus sanguinis could qualify a person to being a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines. With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution
and, jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the primary basis
of citizenship by birth. Considering the reservations made by the parties on
the veracity of some of the entries on the birth certificate of FPJ and the
marriage certificate of his parents, the only conclusions that could be drawn
with some degree of certainty from the documents would be that (1) The
parents of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley; (2) FPJ was born to them
on 20 August 1939; (3) Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each
other on 16 September, 1940; (4) The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo Poe;
and (5) At the time of his death on 11 September 1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84
years old. The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley, the birth
certificate of FPJ, and the death certificate of Lorenzo Pou are documents of
public record in the custody of a public officer. The documents have been
submitted in evidence by both contending parties during the proceedings
before the COMELEC. But while the totality of the evidence may not establish
conclusively that FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence
on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot
be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate
of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, GR L-

21289, 4 October 1971

Facts:

Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a
non-immigrant, for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines. She
was permitted to come into the Philippines.

On the date of her arrival, Asher Y, Cheng filed a bond to undertake,

among others, that Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the
Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this
country or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of
Immigration. After repeated extensions, she was allowed to stay in the
Philippines up to 13 February 1962.

Before the expiration of her authorized period to stay, she contracted

marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged
Filipino citizen.

Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of

Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate
deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an
action for injunction with preliminary injunction.

The Solicitor General opposes the ground that the marriage of the
alien to a Filipino citizen does not automatically confer on the latter
Philippine citizenship. Plaintiff-appellant does not possess all the
qualifications required for applicant for naturalization even she has proven
that she possesses none of the disqualifications in said law.

Issue:

Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung became ipso facto a Filipino

citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen

Ruling:

Yes, Lau Yeun Yeung became ipso facto a Filipino citizen upon her
marriage to a Filipino Citizen.
 An alien woman, upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen, becomes
lawfully naturalized ipso facto, provided that she does not possess all of the
disqualification to be the citizen of the Philippines.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: In Re: Mallare A.M No. 533, April 29, 1968

Facts:

Florencio Mallare, was admitted to the practice of law on 5 March 1962.

In his verified petition to take the bar examinations he alleged that he is a
citizen of the Philippines and that his father is Esteban Mallare and his
mother is Te Na, are both Filipino citizens.

The Acting Commissioner of Immigration Martiniano P. Vivo denounced

the respondent to this Court as a Chinaman masquerading as a Filipino
citizen and requested that the matter be investigated thoroughly and if the
respondent fails to show that he has legally become a Filipino, steps be taken
for striking his name from the roll of persons authorized to practice law.

Florencio Mallare further manifested that he is a Filipino citizen based

on the supposed citizenship of his father, Esteban Mallare, alleged to be a
Filipino citizen by choice, because he was the illegitimate son of a Chinese
father and a Filipina mother, Ana Mallare and that the respondent's mother,
Te Na, a Chinese, followed the citizenship of her husband upon their
marriage. Also having been declared a Filipino citizen in a final judgment in
1960 by the Court of First Instance of Quezon province, in its Civil Case has
likewise been ordered corrected to Filipino.

Florencio Mallare insisted that his Filipino citizenship is conclusive, res

judicata and binding to the government and to the world.

Issue:

Whether or not an illegitimate child of an alien father and mother

under 1935 constitution need to elect citizenship to be considered a Filipino
Citizen

Ruling:

Yes, the illegitimate child of an alien father and mother under 1935
constitution need to elect citizenship to be considered a Filipino.

The declaration in Civil cases are not modes of acquiring Philippine

citizenship; neither is the Chinese citizenship of the respondent converted to
Filipino because certain government agencies recognized him as such. He
remains Chinese until he is naturalized.
 The pronouncement was not within the court's competence, because
the declaration of the citizenship of these defendants was not the relief that
was sought. At the time, the pronouncement was beyond judicial power,
there being no law authorizing the institution of a judicial proceeding to
declare the citizenship of an individual.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Aznar vs Comelec G:R.No. 83820, May 25, 1990

Facts:

Emilio "Lito" Osmea filed his certificate of candidacy with the

COMELEC for the position of Provincial Governor of Cebu Province in the
January 18, 1988 local elections.

, the Cebu PDP-Laban Provincial Council (Cebu-PDP Laban, for short), as

represented by petitioner Jose B. Aznar in his capacity as its incumbent
Provincial Chairman, filed with the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification
of private respondent on the ground that he is allegedly not a Filipino citizen,
being a citizen of the United States of America.

petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation submitting a Certificate issued by the

then Immigration and Deportation Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago
certifying that private respondent is an American and is a holder of Alien
Certificate of Registration

Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained that he is a Filipino

citizen, alleging: that he is the legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmea, a
Filipino and son of the late President Sergio Osmea, Sr.; that he is a holder
of a valid and subsisting Philippine Passport No. 0855103 issued on March
25, 1987; that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since
birth and has not gone out of the country for more than six months; and that
he has been a registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.

Issue:

Whether or not Emilio Osmea is not a Filipio Citizen

Ruling:

No, Emilio Osmea is a Filipio Citizen. Because in order to lost Filipino

Citizenship it must comply with modes provided by C.A No. 63, these are: (1)
by naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by express renunciation of
citizenship; and (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country. And it is clear that Osmea did not
lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three modes of losing Philippine
citizenship.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1
Topic:

Citation: Frivaldo vs Comelec, G:R No. 87193, July 23, 1989

Facts:

Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the

province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988, and assumed office in due time.
On October 27, 1988, the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter
(hereafter, League), represented by its President, Salvador Estuye, who was
also suing in his personal capacity, filed with the Commission on Elections a
petition for the annulment of Frivaldo; election and proclamation on the
ground that he was not a Filipino citizen.

Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as

alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had sought
American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos.

But they argued that Frivalgo did not reacquired Philippine citizenship
on the day of the election on January 18, 1988. He was therefore not
qualified to run for and be elected governor.

Furthermore, the Solicitor General supported the contention that

Frivaldo was not a citizen of the Philippines and had not repatriated himself
after his naturalization as an American citizen. As an alien, he was
disqualified from public office in the Philippines.

Issue:

Whether or not Juan G. Frivaldo is a Filipino Citizen of the Philippines

Ruling:

No, Juan Frivaldo is not a Filipino Citizen of the Philippines. Because he

lost his Citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of the other country, and
before the election he did not reacquire his Philippine Citizenship by direct
act of congress, by naturalization or by repatriation. Philippine citizenship
previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered, because like a jealous
and possessive mother, once rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with
eager arms its prodigal if repentant children.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Co vs. House of Representative, G:R No.92191-92, July 30,

1991

Facts:

The congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar

was held. Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative
in the second legislative district of Northern Samar. Ong was proclaimed the
duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar.
But he was charged by Balanquit that Ong is not a Natural born Filipino
Citizen
The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal declared that
respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a
resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.
Issue:
Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is a citizen of the Philippines
Held:
Yes, Jose Ong, Jr. is a citizen of the Philippines.
In the year 1895, the private respondents grandfather,
Ong Te, arrived in the Philippines from China and established his
residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar. The father of the private
respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905 but was brought by
Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915, he filed withthe court an application for
naturalization and was declared a Filipino citizen.In 1984, the private
respondent married a Filipina named Desiree Lim. For the elections of 1984
and1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and
voted there during those elections. Under the 1973 Constitution, those born
of Filipino fathers and those born of Filipino mothers with an alien father were
placed on equal footing. They were both considered as natural born
citizens.Besides,privatere s p o n d e n t d i d m o re t h a n m e re l y exe rc i s e h
i s r i g h t o f s u ff r a g e . H e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d h i s l i f e h e re i n t h e Philippin
es.On the issue of residence, it is not required that a person should have a
house in order to establish his residence and domicile. It is enough that he
should live in the municipality or in a rented house or in that of a friend or
relative. To require him to own property in order to be eligible to run for Congress would
be tantamount to a property qualification. The Constitution only requires that
the candidate meet the age, citizenship, voting and residence requirements
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Tabasa vs. Court of Appeals, G:R No. 125793, August 29,
2006

Facts:

Tabasa was a natural born citizen of the Philippines before his father
was naturalized citizen of the United States and at the same time he also
acquired American citizenship by derivative naturalization.

On August 3, 1995, Tabasa returned in the Philippines and admitted as

balikbayan for one year. But he was arrested due to the violation of the
Administrative Code. It was informed by the US embassy to the BID that the
passport of Tabasa was revoked U.S Department of State because he is the
subject of an outstanding federal warrant of arrest issued for violation of
Section 1073,Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution. He is also charged with
one count of a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of California Penal
Code and one count of sexual battery.

But the Petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for
Habeas Corpus with Preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
Tabasa alleged that he is entitled to admission or to a change of his
immigration status as a non-quota immigrant because he is married to a
Filipino citizen as provided in Section 13, paragraph (a) of the Philippine
Immigration Act of 1940; and that he was a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines prior to his derivative naturalization when he was seven years old
due to the naturalization of his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, in 1968.

When Tabasa was allowed by the Commissioner of Immigration granted

a temporary release on bail, he acquired Filipino Citizenship by repatriation in
accordance with RA. No. 8171 and invoked that he is now a Filipino citizen,
he cannot be deported or detained.

Issue:

Whether or not Tabasa has validly reacquired his Philippine Citizenship

under RA No 8171

Ruling:

No, Tabasa did not reacquired his Philippine Citizenship under RA No

8171.
 The only person entitled to repatriation under RA No 8171 are the
Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens
and Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their
Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. The
repatriation will also benefit his minor children according to the law. This
includes a situation where a former Filipino subsequently had children while
he was a naturalized citizen of a foreign country.

To claim the benefit of the said law, the children must be of minor age
at the time of the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent. Since, Tabasa
was no longer a minor at the time his repatriation. RA 8171 belongs only to
those children who are still minor at the time of the filing of repatriation. And
Tabasa lost his citizenship not by economic or political exigencies but by the
operation of law.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Cabiling vs Commissioner Fernandez, G:R No. 183133, July

26, 2010

Facts:

There is complaint receive by the Bureau of Immigration alleging that

Felix Ma and his seven children are undesirable and overstaying aliens. The
family of Felex manifested that it was political motivated because they
strongly supported a candidate in Surigao City in the 2004 National and Local
Election.

But there is a record shows that Felex were born under the 1935
constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father. They were all raised here
in the Philippines for almost 60 years and studied here at the same time.
They dont even know how to speak nor understand Chinese and travel in
Taiwan and do not know any relative of their father.

During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of

Immigration their Alien Certificate of Registration. And upon the age of
majority, they claimed Philippine Citizenship. Having taken their oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines as Citizens of this country,
however they failed to have the necessary documents in the civil registry as
required under Commonwealth Act No 625.

Issue:

Whether or not failure to have the necessary documents in the civil

registry negates their rights to Filipino Citizenship as children of a Filipino
mother

Ruling:

No, it will not negate their rights to Filipino Citizenship as children of a

Filipino mother. Because Having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is the basis
of the right of the petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship. Petitioners
elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance. The failure to register
the election in the civil registry should not defeat the election and negate the
permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother. The lacking requirements
may still be complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate
administrative penalties, if any. The documents they submitted supporting
their allegations that they have already registered with the civil registry,
although belatedly, should be examined for validation purposes by the
appropriate agency, in this case, the Bureau of Immigration. Other
requirements embodied in the administrative orders and other issuances of
the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Justice shall be complied
with within a reasonable time.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Mercado vs. Manzano G:R No. 135083, May 26, 1999

Facts:

Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were

candidates for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the elections.

Ernesto Mamaril filed a petition for disqualification against Manzano

alleging that Manzano is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United
State and invoking that the proclamation should be suspended under Sec.
40 of the Local Government Code, persons with dual citizenship are
disqualified from running for any elective position.

The Second Division of the COMELEC granted the petition of

Mamaril and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of
private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citizen.

Manzano admitted that he is registered as a foreigner with the

Bureau of Immigration under Alien Certificate of Registration and alleged
that he is a Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a Filipino father
and a Filipino mother. He was born in the United States, San Francisco,
California and is considered an American citizen under US Laws.

Issue:

Whether or not dual citizenship is disqualified to run in Public Office

Ruling:

No, dual citizenship is not disqualified to run for Public Office. This is
different from the dual allegiance.

The dual citizenship is a result of the concurrent application of the

different laws of two or more states; a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Such a situation may arise when a person whose
parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus
sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a
person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently
considered a citizen of both states.

On the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person

simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual's volition.

The Certification that Manzano is an American does not mean

that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is both citizens of two
countries. Indeed, there is no express renunciation here of Philippine
citizenship; truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said
citizenship. When we consider that the renunciation needed to lose
Philippine citizenship must be express, it stands to reason that there
can be no such loss of Philippine citizenship when there is no
renunciation, either express or implied.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Jacot vs. Dal and Comelec G:R No.179848, November 27,
2008

Facts:

Jacot was charge of disqualification case from running for the position
of Vice-Mayor of Catarman Camiguin on the ground that he failed to make a
personal renouncement of his United States citizenship filed by Rogen Dal.

After the election Jacot garnered the highest number of votes but right
after he was disqualified by the Comelec Second Division for failure to
renounce of his US citizenship that required by under RA 9225. Comelec held
that Jacot lost his citizenship by means of naturalization.

Issue:

Whether or not Jacot is disqualified from running as a candidate in

public office for failure to make personal and sworn renunciation of his US
Citizen

Ruling:

Yes, Jacot should be disqualified from running as a candidate in public

office for failure to make personal and sworn renunciation of his US citizen.

Because his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines made

before the Los Angeles PCG and his Certificate of Candidacy do not
substantially comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn
renunciation of foreign citizenship because these are distinct requirements to
be complied with for different purposes.

Reacquiring or retaining their Philippine citizenship under RA No 9225

to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, but also to
explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they wish to run for elective
posts in the Philippines, because in order to qualify as a candidate for public
office must only have one citizenship.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Cordora vs Comelec, G:R No. 176947, February 18, 2009

Facts:

Cordora filed a petition to disqualify Tambunting to run for public office

because he did possess the qualifications to run for public office. Cordora
claimed that Tambunting is not a natural-born Filipino, because Tambunting
presented a copy of his birth certificate which showed that he was born of a
Filipino mother and an American father and insisted that Tambunting is a
Naturalized American Citizen. He further Presented a certification from the
Bureau of Immigration which stated that, Tambunting claimed that he is an
American: upon arrival in the Philippines and upon departure from the
Philippines indeed these confirmed that Tambunting acquired American
citizenship through naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Issue:

Whether or not Tambunting is a natural born Filipino

Ruling:

Yes, Tambunting is a natural born Filipino. Tambunting possesses dual

citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his birth, it was no longer
necessary for Tambunting to undergo the naturalization process to acquire
American citizenship. Because the citizenship of Tambunting is a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is
simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a
situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state
which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which
follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any
voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states.
Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic:

Citation: Llamanzares vs. Comelec, GR 221697, GR 221698-700

March 8, 2016

Facts:

In her COC for presidency for the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe
declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the
Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would be 10 years and 11
months counted from 24 May 2005.

May 24, 2005 was the day she came to the Philippines after deciding to
stay in the PH for good. Before that however, and even afterwards, she has
been going to and fro between US and Philippines. She was born in 1968,
found as newborn infant in Iloilo, and was legally adopted. She immigrated
to the US in 1991 and was naturalized as American citizen in 2001. On July
18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her
Filipino citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained a
new Philippine passport. In 2010, before assuming her post as an appointed
chairperson of the MTRCB, she renounced her American citizenship to satisfy
the RA 9225 requirement . From then on, she stopped using her American
passport.

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her

candidacy on the ground particularly, among others, that she cannot be
considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since she cannot prove that her
biological parents or either of them were Filipinos. The COMELEC en banc
cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she is in want of citizenship and
residence requirements, and that she committed material misrepresentations
in her COC.

Issue:

Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a natural born Filipino citizen

Ruling:

Yes Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural born Filipino citizen.

There is a high probability that Grace Poes parents are Filipinos. Her
physical features are typical of Filipinos. The fact that she was abandoned as
an infant in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is
overwhelmingly Filipinos such that there would be more than 99% chance
that a child born in such province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial
evidence of her parents nationality. That probability and the evidence on
which it is based are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence. To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the
virtually impossible, as the norm.

By the votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that foundlings are as a class,

natural-born citizens. This is based on the finding that the deliberations of
the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. While the 1935 Constitutions
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which
would definitely exclude foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity
in the enumeration with respect to foundlings, the SC felt the need to
examine the intent of the framers.

That foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born

citizenship is supported by treaties and the general principles of international
law. Although the Philippines is not a signatory to some of these treaties, it
adheres to the customary rule to presume foundlings as having born of the
country in which the foundling is found.