You are on page 1of 7


MANZANO 307 SCRA 630 (1999) Issues:

G.R. No. 135083 1. WON, petitioner Mercado has personality to
Facts: bring this suit considering that he was not an
Edu Manzano, Ernesto Mercado and Gabriel original party in the case for disqualification
Daza were candidates for Vice Mayor of Makati filed by Ernesto Mamaril.
City during the May 11, 1998 elections. 2. WON dual citizenship a ground for
A certain Ernesto Mamaril filed a petition for disqualification?

disqualification on Manzano contending that 3. WON there was a valid election of citizenship?

Manzano is an American citizen thus suspending Reasons:

the proclamation of the private respondent.
1. Yes, petitioner Mercado, has the right to bring
COMELEC's Second Division granted the
suit. At the time Mercado filed a "Motion for
petition cancelling the certificate of candidacy of
Leave to File Intervention" on May 20, 1998,
Manzano on May 7, 1998 on the grounds that
there had been no proclamation of the winner,
dual citizens are disqualified under Sec 40 of the
and petitioner's purpose was precisely to have
Local Goverment Code from running any
private respondent disqualified "from running
elective position.
for [an] elective local position" under 40(d) of
Manzado filed a motion for reconsideration on
R.A. No. 7160. If Ernesto Mamaril (who
May 8, 1998 and the motion remained pending originally instituted the disqualification
even after the election. proceedings), a registered voter of Makati City,
The petitioner, Mercado sought to intervene in was competent to bring the action, so was
the case for disqualification which was opposed Mercado since the he was a rival candidate for
by the private respondent. vice mayor of Makati City. Mercado had a right
On August 19, 1998, the COMELEC en banc to intervene at that stage of the proceedings for
rendered its resolution reversing the decision of the disqualification against private respondent is
the COMELEC's Second Division, declaring clear from 6 of R.A. No. 6646 or the Electoral
that private respondent Manzano is qualified to Reforms Law of 1987 which provides that
run for Vice mayor of Makati. intervention may be allowed in proceedings for
Pursuant to the resolution rendered by the disqualification even after election if there has been
COMELEC enbanc, on August 31, 1998, the no final judgment rendered. Failure of
board of canvassers proclaimed private COMELEC en banc to resolve petitioners motion for
respondent as the Vice Mayor of the city of intervention was tantamount to denial of the motion,
Makati. justifying this petition for certiorari.
Thus, this petition for Certiorari praying to set 2. NO. Invoking the maxim dura lex sed lex,
aside the resolution of the COMELEC en banc petitioner contends that through Sec. 40(d) of
and to declare private respondent Manzano, the Local Government Code (which declares as
disqualified to hold the office Vice Mayor of disqualified from running for elective local
Makati. position Those with dual-citizenship),
Congress has command[ed] in explicit terms Ruling: Petition is DISMISSED.
the ineligibility of persons possessing dual
allegiance to hold elective office. Dual
2. In Re: Vicente Ching
citizenship is different from dual allegiance.
Dual citizenship is involuntary; it arises out of Legal Profession Admission to the Bar Citizenship
circumstances of birth or marriage, where a Requirement
person is recognized to be a national by two or In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the
more states. Dual allegiance is a result of a Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually
persons volition; it is a situation wherein a passed the bar but he was advised that he needs to show
person simultaneously owes, by some positive proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to
act, loyalty to two or more states. Dual take his oath. Apparently, Chings father was a Chinese
citizenship is an issue because a person who has citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents
this raises a question of which states law must were married before he was born in 1963. Under the
apply to him/her, therefore posting a threat to a 1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent
countrys sovereignty. Hence, dual citizenship is a foreigner, acquires the foreign citizenship of the
in the aforementioned disqualification clause foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always
must mean dual allegiance. Therefore, persons considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified
with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this public accountant a profession reserved for Filipinos;
disqualification. that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in La
3. Yes, there was a valid election of citizenship. It Union.
should suffice that upon filing of certificates for The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying
candidacy, such persons with dual citizenship that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino,
have elected their Philippine citizenship to Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon
terminate their dual citizenship. In private reaching the age of majority; that under prevailing
respondents certificate of candidacy, he made jurisprudence, upon reaching the age of majority is
these statements under oath on March 27, 1998: construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of
I am a Filipino citizenNatural-born. I am majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in
not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a 1964 while the 1935 Constitution was in place).
foreign country. I am eligible for the office I
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so
seek to be elected. I will support and defend the
when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain
after reaching the age of majority. Nevertheless, the
true faith and allegiance theretoThe filing of
Solicitor-General recommended that the rule be relaxed
such certificate of candidacy sufficed to
due to the special circumstance of Ching.
renounce his American citizenship, effectively
removing any disqualification he might have as ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take
a dual-citizen. the lawyers oath.
HELD: No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or Reacquired
citizenship. The Supreme Court cannot agree with the (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his
recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Fourteen years citizenship by, among other, rendering service to or
had lapsed and its way beyond the allowable 7 year accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
period. The Supreme Court even noted that the period is country.
originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It
seems it cant be extended any further). Chings special
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of
circumstances cant be considered. It is not enough that
Philippine citizenship was erased by his naturalization as
he considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a
a U.S. citizen in 1990, in connection with his service in
professional and a public officer (was) serving this
the U.S. Marine Corps.
country. The rules for citizenship are in place. Further,
Ching didnt give any explanation why he belatedly
chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess its simply In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship
because he never thought hes Chinese not until he through repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act Providing
applied to take the bar). The prescribed procedure in for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons
electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious Who Lost Such Citizenship by Rendering Service To, or
and painstaking process. All that is required of the Accepting Commission In, the Armed Forces of the
elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine United States (1960)]. He ran for and was elected as the
citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the
civil registry. Chings unreasonable and unexplained 1998 elections. He won over petitioner Bengson who
delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed was then running for reelection.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto
3. BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET claiming that Cruz
G.R. No. 142840 was not qualified to become a member of the HOR since
he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article
May 7, 2001
VI, section 6 of the Constitution.
FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for
this case, in view of the constitutional requirement that
quo warranto and declaring Cruz the duly elected
no person shall be a Member of the House of
Representative in the said election.
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen.
ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became
Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He
an American citizen, can still be considered a natural-
was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In 1985,
born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine
however, Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps and
without the consent of the Republic of the Philippines,
took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a HELD: petition dismissed
Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under YES
CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may
however reacquire the same in the manner provided by allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other
law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which citizenship.
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the
Republic and having registered the same in the Civil
1. by naturalization, Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with
the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to have
2. by repatriation, and
recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a
3. by direct act of Congress.
status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino
** father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation

Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those allows him to recover, or return to, his original status

who lost their citizenship due to: before he lost his Philippine citizenship.

1. desertion of the armed forces; 4. Tecson Vs. Comelec

2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in G.R. No. 161434

World War II; March 3, 2004

3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at Facts:

any other time,
Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition before
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course

5. political economic necessity or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis
that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original
certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born
nationality This means that a naturalized Filipino who
Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his
lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a
parents were foreigners; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe,
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was
was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a
originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his
Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former
Spanish subject.
status as a natural-born Filipino.
Granting, petitioner asseverated, that Allan F. Poewas a
R.A. No. 2630 provides:
Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his
Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an
citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting illegitimate child of an alien mother. Petitioner based the
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, allegation of the illegitimate birth of respondent on two
or after separation from the Armed Forces of the United assertions - first, Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage
States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie
Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to Kelley and, second, even if no such prior marriage had
the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year
with Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides after the birth of respondent.
or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath of
Issue: Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born certificate of candidacy in violation of Section
Filipino citizen. 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus
Election Code.

It is necessary to take on the matter of whether

or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen, 5. Republic of the Philippines vs Chuley Lim
which, in turn, depended on whether or not the
In 1999, Chuley Lim filed a petition for
father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have
correction of entries in her birth certificate with
himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the
the regional trial court of Lanao del Norte. Her
affirmative, whether or not the alleged
maiden name was Chuley Yu and thats how it
illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from
appears in all her official records except that in
taking after the Filipino citizenship of his
her birth certificate where it appears as Chuley
putative father. Any conclusion on the Filipino
Yo. She said that it was misspelled. The
citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn
Republic of the Philippines through the local
from the presumption that having died in 1954 at
city prosecutor raised the issue of citizenship
84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born
because it appears that Lims birth certificate
sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines
shows that she is a Filipino. The prosecutor
was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos,
contends that Lims father was a Chinese; that
Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his
she acquired her fathers citizenship pursuant to
death in 1954, in the absence of any other
the 1935 Constitution in place when she was
evidence, could have well been his place of
born; that she never elected Filipino citizenship
residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou
when she reached the age of majority (she is
would have benefited from the "en masse
already 47 years old at that time); that since she
Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had
is a Chinese, her birth certificate should be
effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo
amended to reflect that she is a Chinese citizen.
Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his
Lim contends that she is an illegitimate child
son, Allan F.Poe, father of respondent FPJ.
hence she is a Filipino.
The 1935 Constitution, during which regime
respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers
ISSUE: Whether or not Lim is a Chinese citizen.
citizenship to all persons whose fathers are
Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
children are legitimate or illegitimate. But while HELD: No. The provision which provides the
the totality of the evidence may not establish election of Filipino citizenship applies only to
conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural- legitimate children. In the case at bar, Lims
born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on mother was a Filipino. Lims mother never
hand still would preponderate in his favor married the Chinese father of Lim hence Lim
enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of did not acquire the Chinese citizenship of her
having made a material misrepresentation in his father. What she acquired is the Filipino
citizenship of her mother. Therefore, she is a application and was, therefore, qualified to run
natural born Filipino and she does not need to for a mayoralty position in the government in
perform any act to confer on her all the rights the May 10, 2004 elections.
and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship.

When he was 7 years old, Joevanie A. Tabasa
Private respondents filed with the COMELEC to acquired American citizenship when his father
disqualify and deny due course or cancel the became a naturalized citizen of the US. In 1995,
certificate of candidacy of Ciceron P. Altarejos, he arrived in the Philippines and was admitted as
on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen "balikbayan"; thereafter, he was arrested and
and that he made a false representation in his detained by the agent of BIR. Th Consul General
COC that he was not a permanent resident of the of the US embassy of Manila filed a request
Municipality of San Jacinto, Masbate, the town with the BID that his passport has been revoked
he's running for as mayor in the May 10, 2004 and that Tabasa had a standing warrant for
elections. Altarejos answered that he was several federal charges against him.
already issued a Certificate of Repatriation by
Petitioner alleged that he acquired Filipino
the Special Committee on Naturalization in
citizenship by repatriation in accordance with
December 17, 1997.
the RA No. 8171, and that because he is now a
Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or
detained by the BID.

Whether or not the registration of petitioners

repatriation with the proper civil registry and ISSUE:
with the Bureau of Immigration a prerequisite in
Whether or not he has validly reacquired
effecting repatriation.
Philippine citizenship under RA 8171 and
therefore, is not an undocumented alien subject
to deportation.

Yes. The registration of certificate of repatriation

with the proper local civil registry and with the RULING:
Bureau of Immigration is a prerequisite in
No. Petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of
effecting repatriation. Petitioner completed all
repatriation under RA 8171. The only person
the requirements of repatriation only after he
entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 is either a
filed his certificate of candidacy for a mayoralty
Filipino woman who lost her Philippine
position but before the elections. Petitioners
citizenship by marriage to an alien, or a natural-
repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his
born Filipino, including his minor children who
lost Philippine citizenship on account of political
or economic necessity.

Petitioner was already 35 years old when he

filed for repatriation. The act cannot be applied
in his case because he is no longer a minor at the
time of his repatriation in 1996. The privilege
under RA 8171 only belongs to children who are
of minor age at the time of filing of the petition
for repatriation.