This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Lim filed a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte. -She claimed that she was born on 29 October 1954 in Buru-an, Iligan City. Her birth was registered in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte but the Municipal Civil Registrar of Kauswagan transferred her record of birth to Iligan City. -the Court finding the petition sufficient in form and substance ordered the publication of the hearing of the petition. -during the hearing, Lim testifies that: -her surname "Yu" was misspelled as "Yo". She has been using "Yu" in all her school records and in her marriage certificate.2 She presented a clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to further show the consistency in her use of the surname "Yu". -she claims that her father’s name in her birth record was written as "Yo Diu To (Co Tian)" when it should have been "Yu Dio To (Co Tian). -her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino considering that her father and mother never got married. Only her deceased father was Chinese, while her mother is Filipina. She claims that her being a registered voter attests to the fact that she is a Filipino citizen. -it was erroneously indicated in her birth certificate that she was a legitimate child when she should have been described as illegitimate considering that her parents were never married. She also presented a certification attested by officials of the local civil registries of Iligan City and Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte that there is no record of marriage between Placida Anto and Yu Dio To from 1948 to the present. -the Court then granted the petition but the Republic appealed to the CA.
-the Republic claims that Lim never complied with the legal requirement in electing her citizenship -the Republic assails the Court of Appeals’ decision in allowing respondent to use her father’s surname despite its finding that she is illegitimate -the questioned corrections were: 1. Her family name from "YO" to "YU"; 2. Her father’s name from "YO DIU TO (CO TIAN)" to "YU DIOTO (CO TIAN)"; 3. Her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" by changing "YES" to "NO" in answer to the question "LEGITIMATE?"; and, 4. Her citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino". Issue: WON CA erred in granting Lim’s petition to correct her civil registry records, especially citizenship. Held: Petition to review DENIED Ratio: The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. It cites Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that 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. Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of respondent who was concededly an illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married. As such, she was not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen. By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth. Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without having to
In this regard. 1989. 1989. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines. En Banc Doctrine: citizenship Date: July 30. While judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname. respondent does not need a court pronouncement for her to use her father’s surname. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG. denied by the HRET in its resolution dated February 22. respondents. 1989. CO. petitioner. In this case. Jr. The HRET in its decision dated November 6. The Republic’s submission is misleading. JR. however. Facts: The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). Northern Samar for voting purposes. and 2)Jose Ong. 1991 Ponente: Justice Gutierrez Jr. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on November 12. In respondent’s case. What it did allow was the correction of her father’s misspelled surname which she has been using ever since she can remember. This was. found for the private respondent. the change in the surname that she has been using for 40 years would even avoid confusion to her community in general. Jose Ong. the Republic has not shown that the Yu family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the object of future mischief. the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held.elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private respondent. The Court of Appeals did not allow respondent to use her father’s surname. On May 11. there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already been using since childhood.. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang. Jr. The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is involved or to the community in general. The petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent premised on the following grounds: 1)Jose Ong. 1987. . The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong. Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the second legislative district of Northern Samar are the petitioners. vs. Jr. Jr. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. ANTONIO Y.
the private respondent. finishing his elementary education in the province of Samar. Since employment opportunities were better in Manila. filed with the Court of First Instance of Samar an application for naturalization on February 15. Manila. Jose Ong Chuan spent his childhood in the province of Samar. after trial. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. He found a job in the Central Bank of the Philippines as an examiner. his elder brother. The business prospered. respondent's full brother. Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905. went to Manila in order to acquire his secondary and college education. As the years passed. 1955. 1955 as final and executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already take his Oath of Allegiance. the Convention which in drafting the Constitution removed the unequal treatment given to derived citizenship on the basis of the mother's citizenship formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong. He was baptized into Christianity. one of whom is the Jose Ong who was born in 1948. There is nothing in the records to differentiate him from other Filipinos insofar as the customs and practices of the local populace were concerned. Ong Te (Jose Ong's grandfather). He decided to put up a hardware store and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in Samar. Jr. Samar on land which he bought from the fruits of hard work. Jose Ong (private respondent) was 9 years old. Ong Te was able to obtain a certificate of residence from the then Spanish colonial administration. The couple bore eight children. The two fell in love and. During this time. was elected as a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention.Hence. Petitions are dismissed. and thereafter took and passed the CPA Board Examinations. the CFI of Samar. the Court of First Instance of Samar issued an order declaring the decision of April 28. he absorbed Filipino cultural values and practices. the following are citizens of the Philippines: 1. On May 15. On April 28. Jose Ong Chuan met a natural born-Filipino. Held: Yes. Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance. arrived in the Philippines from China. 1954. Emil. . he worked in the hardware business of his family in Manila. Jose Ong graduated from college. 1957. As a resident of Laoang. is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. Agripina Lao. The Constitutional Convention had to be aware of the meaning of natural born citizenship since it was precisely amending the article on this subject. Issue: WON Jose Ong. a certificate of naturalization was issued to him. The father of the private respondent. however. as a natural born Filipino. Ong Te established his residence in the municipality of Laoang. the respondent looked for work here. Ratio: The records show that in the year 1895. a branch was set-up in Binondo. After completing his elementary education. Jose Ong Chuan. As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the rural and seaside community of Laoang. Parenthetically. Expansion became inevitable. declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen. correspondingly. In the meantime. got married in 1932 according to Catholic faith and practice. in search for better education. Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated from this country. As a result. His status as a natural born citizen was challenged. unsure of his legal status and in an unequivocal affirmation of where he cast his life and family. Pursuant to said order. In 1971. Later. thereafter. He was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915. these petitions for certiorari. The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article IV read: SECTION 1.
election through a sworn statement would have been an unusual and unnecessary procedure for one who had been a citizen since he was nine years old In Re: Florencio Mallare: the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. SC: The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping respondent’s father of his citizenship after his death. Those who are naturalized in accordance with electing citizenship inspite of his already having been a citizen since 1957. conferred the status of a natural-born Election becomes material because Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution accords natural born status to children born of Filipino mothers before January 17. In 1969.2. to ask the Court to declare the grant of Philippine citizenship to respondent’s father as null and void would run against the principle of due process because he has already been laid to rest. The Court interprets Section 1. He was already a citizen. SECTION 2. 3. Those born before January 17. The provision in question was enacted to correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was automatically granted the status of a natural-born citizen while one born of a Filipino mother and an alien father would still have to elect Philippine citizenship. of Filipino mothers. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. law. Paragraph 3 above as applying not only to those who elect Philippine citizenship after February 2. He could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 the Constitution would be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 . elected citizenship before that date. and 4. he was not. An attack on a person’s citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its nullity. If one so elected. under earlier laws. having been born of Filipino mothers. therefore. Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9) years old. Natural-born Citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. 1973. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. if they elect citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. 1987 but also to those who. 1973. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Petitioners alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was not validly a naturalized citizen because of his premature taking of the oath of citizenship. He has established his life here in the Philippines.
2004 CO VS CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MANILA FACTS: HUBERT TAN CO was born March 23. they do not provide the same beneficial effects with respect to the minor children of the applicant.On August 27. HELD: It is not enough that the petitioners adduce in evidence the certificate of naturalization of their father. ARLENE TAN CO.In their respective certificates of birth. 270. His sister. 1974.d) Application of pari material rule of construction is misplaced.R. material allegations in their petition: 1) That they are legitimate children of Co Boon Peng. 138496 February 23. 3) That they were still minors when Co Boon Peng was naturalized as a Filipino citizen. 1975. . they filed with the RTC Manila a petition under Rules of Court for correction of entries in the certificate of birth which was denied on the ff. CO BOON PENG filed an application for his naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines with the Special Committee on Naturalization under LETTER OF INSTRUCTION no. was born May 19. 2) They were born in the Philippines. They are likewise mandated to prove the ff. c) Section 15 CA no. 1998. 15: effects of naturalization on the wife and the children b) LOI 270: refers to qualified individuals only.**Sec.G. 473 should not be deemed and incorporated in and applied to LOI 270. ISSUE: Whether or not Arlene and Hubert are Filipino citizens on account of the naturalization of their Father Co Boon Peng. His application was granted and he was conferred Philippine citizenship under PD 1055. NO. to entitle them to Philippine citizenship. grounds: a) Although CA 473 and LOI 270 are statutes relating to the same subject matter. TAN are CHINESE CITIZENS. it is stated that their parents CO BOON PENG AND LOURDESVIHONG K. He was issued a certificate of naturalization and consequently took an oath as Philippine citizen on February 15.1977.