Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Constitutional Law (Case Digest 3) Concept of State

Constitutional Law (Case Digest 3) Concept of State

Ratings: (0)|Views: 830 |Likes:

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Anthony Rupac Escasinas on Sep 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/02/2014

pdf

text

original

 
*the following case digests are not mine (sources are linked)please correct me if I included wrong cases thank you! :)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. People
 CitizenshipDistinguished from nationalityModes of Acquiring citizenshipCitizens of the Philippines------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-21289 October 4, 1971
 
MOY YA LIM YAO alias EDILBERTO AGUINALDO LIM and LAU YUEN YEUNG, petitioners-appellants,vs.
 
THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, respondent-appellee.
 
FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant, a temporary alien visitor, whose authorized stay in the Philippines was toexpire, claims herself to be lawfully naturalized by virtue of her marriage with co-plaintiff, a Filipinocitizen. Solicitor General opposes on the ground that the mere marriage of a Filipino citizen to analien does not automatically confer on the latter Philippine citizenship, because record shows thatthe same does not posses all the qualifications required of applicants for naturalization (CA 473),even if she has proven that she does not suffer any disqualification there under.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an alien who married a naturalized Filipino is lawfully naturalized.
HELD:
Yes, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native-born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto aFilipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines (Sec. 15 and 4, CA 473).Sources:Full text of case Case digest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. 99358 January 30, 1995
 
DJUMANTAN, petitioner,vs.
 
HON. ANDREA D. DOMINGO, COMMISSIONER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION, HON.
 
REGINO R. SANTIAGO and HON. JORGE V. SARMIENTO, COMMISSIONERS BUREAU OFIMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION, respondents.
 
Facts:
Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as a contract worker.On April 3, 1974, he embraced and was converted to Islam. On May 17, 1974, he married petitionerin accordance with Islamic rites. He returned to the Philippines in January 1979. On January 13,1979, petitioner and her two children with Banez, arrived in Manila as the "guests" of Banez. Thelatter made it appear that he was just a friend of the family of petitioner and was merely repaying thehospitability extended to him during his stay in Indonesia. When petitioner and her two childrenarrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport on January 13, 1979, Banez, together with MarinaCabael, met them.As "guests," petitioner and her two children lived in the house of Banez. Petitionerand her children were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors under Section 9(a) of theImmigration Act of 1940.In 1981, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner. On March 25,1982, the immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to that of permanentresident under Section 13(a) of the same law. On April 14, 1982, petitioner was issued an aliencertificate of registration.Not accepting the set-back, Banez' eldest son, Leonardo, filed a letter complaint with theOmbudsman, who subsequently referred the letter to the CID. On the basis of the said letter,petitioner was detained at the CID detention cell.The CID issued an order revoking the status of permanent resident given to petitioner, the Boardfound the 2nd marriage irregular and not in accordance with the laws of the Phils. There was thus nobasis for giving her the status of permanent residence, since she was an Indonesian citizen and hermarriage with a Filipino Citizen was not valid.Thus this petition for certiorari
Issue:
Whether or not the courts may review deportation proceedings
Held :
Yes. Section 1 of Article 8 says Judicial Power includes 1) settle actual controversiesinvolving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable 2) determine whether or not there hasbeen a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of anybranch or instrumentality of the government.We need not resolve the validity of petitioner's marriage to Banez, if under the law the CID canvalidly deport petitioner as an "undesirable alien" regardless of her marriage to a Filipino citizen.Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose presence is deemed inimical tothe public interest is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entry intothe country.However, under clause 1 of Section 37(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940 an "alien who enters thePhilippines after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading statements orwithout inspection and admission by the immigration authorities at a designated port of entry or atany place other than at a designated port of entry" is subject to deportation.The deportation of an alien under said clause of Section 37(a) has a prescriptive period and "shallnot be effected ... unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five years after the
 
cause for deportation arises". Tolling the prescriptive period from November 19, 1980, whenLeonardo C. Banez informed the CID of the illegal entry of petitioner into the country, more than fiveyears had elapsed before the issuance of the order of her deportation on September 27, 1990.Sources:Full text of case Case digest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Election of Philippine citizenship------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republic of the Philippines
 
SUPREME COURT
 
Manila
 
EN BANC
 
BAR MATTER No. 914 October 1, 1999
 
RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR,
 
vs.
 
VICENTE D. CHING, applicant.
 
R E S O L U T I O N
 KAPUNAN, J.:Can a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien fathervalidly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age of majority? Thisis the question sought to be resolved in the present case involving the application for admission tothe Philippine Bar of Vicente D. Ching.The facts of this case are as follows:Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A.Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Chinghas resided in the Philippines.On 17 July 1998, Ching, after having completed a Bachelor of Laws course at the St. LouisUniversity in Baguio City, filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution ofthis Court, dated 1 September 1998, he was allowed to take the Bar Examinations, subject to thecondition that he must submit to the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship.In compliance with the above resolution, Ching submitted on 18 November 1998, the followingdocuments:1. Certification, dated 9 June 1986, issued by the Board of Accountancy of the ProfessionalRegulations Commission showing that Ching is a certified public accountant;

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Lester Anonuevo liked this
Noe Bautista liked this
Noe Bautista liked this
Noe Bautista liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->