You are on page 1of 5

G.R. No.

87193, 23 June 1989 [Naturalization; Reacquisition

FACTS:

Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the province of Sorsogon and assumed office in due time. The League
of Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was not a
Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States.

Frivaldo admitted the allegations but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he was naturalized as
American citizen only to protect himself against President Marcos during the Martial Law era.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Frivaldo is a Filipino citizen.

RULING:

No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications,
a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the
Constitution.

He claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of valid repatriation. He claims that by actively
participating in the local elections, he automatically forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the United
States of America. The Court stated that that the alleged forfeiture was between him and the US. If he really
wanted to drop his American citizenship, he could do so in accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473
and PD 725. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization, or by
repatriation.

Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Merito Miguel was elected as mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan in the local elections of January 18, 1988. His
disqualification, however, was sought by Mateo Caasi on the ground that under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election
Code Miguel was not qualified because he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent resident of the USA and not
of Bolinao. Sec. 48 provides:

Sec. 68. Disqualifications - Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign
country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived
his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence
requirement provided for in the election laws.

Miguel admitted that he holds a green card, but he denied that he is a permanent resident of the United States. He
argued that he obtained the green card for convenience in order that he may freely enter the United States for his
periodic medical examination and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of Bolinao,
Pangasinan and that he voted in all previous elections, including the plebiscite on February 2, 1987 for the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution and the congressional elections on May 18, 1987. After hearing, the Comelec
dismissed the petition. It held that the possession of a green card by the respondent Miguel does not sufficiently
establish that he has abandoned his residence in the Philippines.

Issue: Whether Miguel, by returning to the Philippines in November 1987 and presenting himself as a candidate for
mayor of Bolinao in the January 18, 1988 local elections, waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant
of the United States

Held: No. To be "qualified to run for elective office" in the Philippines, the law requires that the candidate who is a
green card holder must have "waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country."
Therefore, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Philippines, did not of itself constitute a
waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the United States. The waiver of his green card

The Courts reiterate that an individual does not lose his domicile even if she has maintained different residences for different purposes. he was "disqualified to run for any elective office. This time. which asked for the number of years of residency.The Courts ruled in favor of Marcos because of the ff reasons: 1. Second. (Bernas book) FACTS: Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban City. In1959.HS. . of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year. She pursued her studies (GS. Without such prior waiver. RULING + RATIO: The case at hand reveals that there is confusion as to the application of ‘Domicile’ and ‘Residence’ in election law. Tacloban became Imelda’s domicile of origin by operation of law when her father brought them to Leyte. MetroManila.S. she ran for President in 1992 and indicated in her CoC that she was a resident and register voter of San Juan. she went to Manila to work in the House of Representatives. she lived in the Malacanang Palace when her husband became the President. the conclusion is that he was disqualified to run for said public office. A minor follows domicile of her parents. which was her father’s hometown. and not her domicile.It was ascertained from the intent of the framers of the1987 Constitution that residence for election purposes is synonymous with domicile. After their exile in Hawaii. authorities before he ran for mayor of Bolinao in the local elections on January 18. The waiver of such immigrant status should be as indubitable as his application for it. her husband was elected a Senator and they lived in San Juan. The incumbent Representative. the 1 year period is irrelevant because wherever he is." Miguel's application for immigrant status and permanent residence in the U.8.S. It cannot be contested that the petitioner held various residences inher lifetime. that she had been a resident for 7months. Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman in Ilocos Norte and registered there as a voter.Rizal where she again registered as a voter. Manila. Two years after.S. In 1952. Montejo. College) in the aforementioned city and subsequently taught in the Leyte Chinese School. she wrote down in her CoC in item no. And in 1965. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that status or that he surrendered his green card to the appropriate U. the essential distinction between residence and domicile lies in the fact that residence is the PHYSICAL presence of a person in a given area and domicile is where a person intends to remain or his permanent residence. it was clear that Marcos has not complied with the 1 year residency requirement. A person can only have a single domicile. despite his occasional visits to the Philippines. -Originally. filed for her disqualification alleging that she did not meet the 1 year constitutional requirement for residency. she married Pres. Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec (1995) If a person retains his domicile of origin for purposes of the residence requirement. 1988. . ISSUE: W/N the petitioner was a resident. and his possession of a green card attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a permanent resident of the U. Marcos filed her CoC for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. she registered as a voter in San Miguel. he is a resident of his domicile of origin.should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Marcos filed an amended CoC changing “7 months” to “since childhood”. The COMELEC found the petition for her disqualification meritorious and cancelled her amended CoC. the 1 year requirement must be satisfied. for election purposes. Apparently. None of these purposes pointed to her intentionof abandoning her domicile of origin. For them. in 1938 when she was 8 years old. claiming that it was an honest misinterpretation that she thought she was being asked for her actual and physical presence in Tolosa. if a person reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile.

Lau Ching Ping. 3. among others. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate deportation. she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen. She could not name any Filipino neighbor. a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law. To add. after the expiration of her authorized stay. After repeated extensions. domicile of origin should be deemed to continue. with a Filipino name except one. her actions upon returning to the country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban. As a result. which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. MOY YA LIM YAO VS. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1. Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February 1962. that said 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 or his authorized representative might properly allow.000.*Civil Code kasi sa Art 110: The husband shall fix the residence of the family. Sheeven kept close ties by establishing residences in Tacloban. the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile. she brought an action for injunction. as her domicile of choice. she stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon. In the absence and concurrence of all these. except for a few words. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Sobrang distinguished yung residence at domicile sa Civil law. When Imelda married late President Marcos in1954.4. petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban. and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle. or sisters-in-law. Asher Y. she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium. it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and speak either English or Tagalog. Rosa. her domicile of origin. an act.00 to undertake. On the date of her arrival. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8 February 1961.Marcos. Leyte while living in her brother’s house. At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her arrival. ISSUE: Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. . She did not know the names of her brothers-in-law. and acts which correspond with the purpose. Moya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.2. Hongkong. celebrating her birthdays and other important milestones. In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines. On 25 January 1962.

becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law.R. Macrohon. while AMEX is corporation doing business in the Philippines and engaged in providing credit and other credit facilities and other allied services. They prayed that the complaint be dismissed a. an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTL INC. for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. a Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962. provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4.HELD: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473. as the case may be. LABELS: 41 SCRA 292 CASE DIGEST CITIZEN CITIZENSHIP G. if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino. As the laws of our country. it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege. hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. L-21289 ANICETO G. This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature intended to treat them differently. but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship. stand today. FACTS: Aniceto Saludo filed a complaint for damages against American Express and/or its officers Ian Fish (VP and Country Manager) and Dominic Mascrinas (Head of Operations) with RTC Maasin. and/or IAN FISH and DOMINIC MASCARINAS. Thus. Leyte (Branch 25) The complaint alleged that Saludo is a member of HOR and resident of Ichon. NO. SALUDO JR. Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata. In their answer. Likewise. V. Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. native born or naturalized. both substantive and procedural. is not required to go through a naturalization proceedings. who dies during the proceedings. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings. The complaint stemmed from the alleged wrongful dishonor of petitioner’s AMEX credit card and the supplementary card issued to his daughter. AMEX et al denied the allegations in the complaint and alleged lack of cause of action and improper venue. was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim. an alien woman marrying a Filipino. None of the parties are residents of Leyte . in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof. there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos). Lau Yuen Yeung. Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case. Leyte.

Residence is not the same as domicile c. as the domicile of petitioner Saludo. Put in another manner. it is understood to mean as "the personal. as congressman or the lone representative of the district of Southern Leyte. i. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place. coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. as the term is understood in its popular sense. therefore. was also his residence. This is because "residence is not domicile. . while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile." Since petitioner Saludo." On the other hand." Further. CA held that not one of the parties was a resident of Southern Leyte hence. Concept of venue according to CA: for purposes of venue. the residence of a person is his actual or physical habitation. the term "residence" imports "not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place. CA explained that the action filed by Saludo was covered by Sec 2. As the Court elucidated.e. CA held (dated May 22. Saludo is not a resident of Leyte as evidenced by his CTC attached to the compliant (Pasay) c. AMEX filed an opposition to ex-parte motion (to set the case for pre-trial) and motion for preliminary hearing (on defense of improper venue) to which Saludo argued against. petitioner Saludo's residence in Southern Leyte could likewise be properly taken judicial notice of by the court a quo. his domicile. as plaintiff. Saludo argued that the CTC is not determinative of one’s residence. had his residence (or domicile) therein as the term is construed in relation to election laws. citing that the allegation that he was not a resident of Leyte was baseless considering that he was the congressman of the lone district of Leyte at the time of the filing of the complaint. or his actual residence or place of abode. 2003) that the reversed the decision of the trial court and found that venue was improperly laid. for the said purpose. Rule 4 ROC which provides that personal actions may be commened and tried where plaintif/s reside or where defendant/s reside. In this popular sense. no matter where he may be found at any given time. at the election of the plaintiff. and (2) personal or physical presence in that place.b. where he. coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. not legal residence or domicile. The court denied the defenses interposed by AMEX (order dated Sept 10. actual residence or place of abode. necessarily. for purposes of venue. He was also an IBP member of Southern Leyte Chapter. actual or physical habitation of a person. that is. which may not necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided that he resides there with continuity and consistency b. the term means merely residence.." Hence. under the rules. eventually intends to return and remain. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. a. Thus. Domicile refers to the relative more permanent abode of a person (intent to remain for an unlimited time ISSUE: WON Saludo is has residence in Leyte HELD: Yes. It is bound to know that. one of the qualifications of a congressman or representative to the House of Representatives is having a residence in the district in which he shall be elected. Complaint was prepared and signed by a lawyer of said city Thereafter." When parsed. petitioner Saludo's act of filing his complaint with the court a quo cannot be characterized as a "specie of forum-shopping" or capricious on his part because. personal residence. the term "residence" requires two elements: (1) intention to reside in the particular place. "the place where a party actually or constructively has a permanent home. is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. On appeal. he is precisely given this option. 2001) and found that the allegations in the complaint constitute a cause of action against respondents. the less technical definition of "residence" is adopted. but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. In fine. he is also deemed to have had his residence therein for purposes of venue for filing personal actions. It can be readily gleaned that the definition of "residence" for purposes of election law is more stringent in that it is equated with the term "domicile. MR denied. under the Constitution. venue was not properly laid. Southern Leyte.