Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 187567               February 15, 2012

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic
of the Philippines, seeking the reversal of the April 3, 2009 Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 3, of Baguio City in Spcl. Pro. Case No. 17-R. The RTC granted the petition 2 filed by
respondent Nora Fe Sagun entitled "In re: Judicial Declaration of Election of Filipino Citizenship, Nora
Fe Sagun v. The Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City."

The facts follow:

Respondent 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 3 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 4 to the Republic of the Philippines. Said document
was notarized by Atty. Cristeta Leung on December 17, 1992, but was not recorded and registered
with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City.

Sometime in September 2005, respondent 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 and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City be ordered to
annotate the same on her birth certificate.

In her petition, respondent averred that she was raised as a Filipino, speaks Ilocano and Tagalog
fluently and attended local schools in Baguio City, including Holy Family Academy and the Saint
Louis University. Respondent claimed that despite her part-Chinese ancestry, she always thought of
herself as a Filipino. She is a registered voter of Precinct No. 0419A of Barangay Manuel A. Roxas in
Baguio City and had voted in local and national elections as shown in the Voter Certification 5 issued
by Atty. Maribelle Uminga of the Commission on Elections of Baguio City.

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.

On August 7, 2007, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance as counsel for
the Republic of the Philippines and authorized the City Prosecutor of Baguio City to appear in the
above mentioned case.6 However, no comment was filed by the City Prosecutor.

After conducting a hearing, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision on April 3, 2009 granting the
petition and declaring respondent a Filipino citizen. The fallo of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner Nora Fe Sagun y Chan is hereby
DECLARED [a] FILIPINO CITIZEN, having chosen or elected Filipino citizenship.

1
Upon payment of the required fees, the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City is hereby directed to
annotate [on] her birth certificate, this judicial declaration of Filipino citizenship of said petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.7

Contending that the lower court erred in so ruling, petitioner, through the OSG, directly filed the
instant recourse via a petition for review on certiorari before us. Petitioner raises the following issues:

Whether or not an action or proceeding for judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship is

II

Whether or not an election of Philippine citizenship, made twelve (12) years after reaching the
age of majority, is considered to have been made "within a reasonable time" as interpreted by
jurisprudence.8

Petitioner argues that respondent’s petition before the RTC was improper on two counts: for one, law
and jurisprudence clearly contemplate no judicial action or proceeding for the declaration of Philippine
citizenship; and for another, the pleaded registration of the oath of allegiance with the local civil
registry and its annotation on respondent’s birth certificate are the ministerial duties of the registrar;
hence, they require no court order. Petitioner asserts that respondent’s petition before the trial court
seeking a judicial declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship undeniably entails a
determination and consequent declaration of her status as a Filipino citizen which is not allowed
under our legal system. Petitioner also argues that if respondent’s intention in filing the petition is
ultimately to have her oath of allegiance registered with the local civil registry and annotated on her
birth certificate, then she does not have to resort to court proceedings.

Petitioner further argues that even assuming that respondent’s action is sanctioned, the trial court
erred in finding respondent as having duly elected Philippine citizenship since her purported election
was not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and was not made within a "reasonable
time." Petitioner points out that while respondent 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. Accordingly, it was made
beyond the period allowed by law.

In her Comment,9 respondent avers that notwithstanding her failure to formally elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, she has in fact effectively elected Filipino citizenship by
her performance of positive acts, among which is the exercise of the right of suffrage. She claims that
she had voted and participated in all local and national elections from the time she was of legal age.
She also insists that she is a Filipino citizen despite the fact that her "election" of Philippine
citizenship was delayed and unregistered.

In reply,10 petitioner argues that the special circumstances invoked by respondent, like her continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, her having been educated in schools in the country, her
choice of staying here despite the naturalization of her parents as American citizens, and her being a
registered voter, cannot confer on her Philippine citizenship as the law specifically provides the
requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by election.

Essentially, the issues for our resolution are: (1) whether respondent’s petition for declaration of
election of Philippine citizenship is sanctioned by the Rules of Court and jurisprudence; (2) whether
respondent has effectively elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed
by law.

The petition is meritorious.

2
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court from the decisions, final
resolutions and orders of the RTC may be taken where only questions of law are raised or involved.
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state
of facts, which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by
the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy
arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the
question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question of law. 11

In the present case, petitioner assails the propriety of the decision of the trial court declaring
respondent a Filipino citizen after finding that respondent was able to substantiate her election of
Filipino citizenship. Petitioner contends that respondent’s petition for judicial declaration of election of
Philippine citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally impermissible. Verily, petitioner has raised
questions of law as the resolution of these issues rest solely on what the law provides given the
attendant circumstances.

In granting the petition, the trial court stated:

This Court believes that petitioner was able to fully substantiate her petition regarding her election of
Filipino citizenship, and the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City should be ordered to annotate in her
birth certificate her election of Filipino citizenship. This Court adds that the petitioner’s election of
Filipino citizenship should be welcomed by this country and people because the petitioner has the
choice to elect citizenship of powerful countries like the United States of America and China,
however, petitioner has chosen Filipino citizenship because she grew up in this country, and has
learned to love the Philippines. Her choice of electing Filipino citizenship is, in fact, a testimony that
many of our people still wish to live in the Philippines, and are very proud of our country.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner Nora Fe Sagun y Chan is hereby
DECLARED as FILIPINO CITIZEN, having chosen or elected Filipino citizenship. 12

For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that there is no proceeding established by law, or the Rules
for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. 13 There is no specific legislation
authorizing the institution of a judicial proceeding to declare that a given person is part of our
citizenry.14 This was our ruling in Yung Uan Chu v. Republic15 citing the early case of Tan v. Republic
of the Philippines,16 where we clearly stated:

Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of
an individual. Courts of justice exist for settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given
right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy,
granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of the adjudication of the
rights of the parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative
to their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power. x x x

Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a specific declaration of respondent’s Filipino
citizenship as such pronouncement was not within the court’s competence.

As to the propriety of respondent’s petition seeking a judicial declaration of election of Philippine

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

3
(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. The right to elect Philippine citizenship was
recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it provided that "[t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five" are citizens of the
Philippines.17 Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried over to the 1987
Constitution which states that "[t]hose born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority" are Philippine citizens. 18 It should be noted,
however, that the 1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citizenship
should not be understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition of
citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. If the citizenship of a person was subject to
challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new charter even if the
judicial challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution. 19

Being a legitimate child, respondent’s citizenship followed that of her father who is Chinese, unless
upon reaching the age of majority, she elects Philippine citizenship. It is a settled rule that only
legitimate children follow the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate children are under the
parental authority of the mother and follow her nationality. 20 An illegitimate child of Filipina need not
perform any act to confer upon him all the rights and privileges attached to citizens of the Philippines;
he automatically becomes a citizen himself.21 But in the case of respondent, for her to be considered
a Filipino citizen, she must have validly elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority.

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625,22 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.23

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.24 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.25 Afterwards, the same is elevated to the Ministry (now Department) of Justice for final
determination and review.26 1âwphi1

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 court’s conclusion that
respondent duly elected Philippine citizenship is erroneous since the records undisputably show that
4
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 respondent’s 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. 27 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,28 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, respondent’s petition before the
trial court must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 3, 2009 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 3 of Baguio City in Spcl. Pro. Case No. 17-R is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.