You are on page 1of 4

Case No. 1 Moy Ya Lim Yao vs.

Commissioner of Immigration

FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung applied for passport visa to enter the Philippines as non-immigrant to visit her
great uncle Lau Ching Ping for one month. After repeated extensions, petitioner Lau Yuen Yeung was
allowed to stay in the Philippines up to February 13, 1962. On January 25, 1962, she contracted marriage
to Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Yeung to an alleged Filipino citizen ipso facto becomes a Filipina.

HELD: An alien woman marrying a Filipino, native-born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina
provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines. Likewise, 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, provided she does not suffer from any disqualifications.

Indeed, a person is deemed a citizen of the philippines provided his father is such citizen from
declaration that an alien woman married to a Filipino citizen of the Philippines provided she might
herself be lawfully naturalized. Both become citizens by operation of law; the former becomes citizens
ipso facto upon birth; the later ipso facto upon marriage.

Case No. 2 Djumantan vs. Domingo

FACTS: Bernard Bañez, married to the petitioner in accordance with Islamic rites. The petitioner and her
two children with Bañez arrived in Manila as the "guests" of Bañez. The later made it appear that he was
just a friend of the family of the petitioner and was merely repaying the hospitality extended to him
during his stay in Indonesia. The immigration status of petitioner was changed from temporary visitor to
that of permanent resident and was issued an alien certificate of registration.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage of the petitioner can be use as a defense to her deportation case?

HELD: There was a blant abuse of our immigration laws in effecting petitioner's entry into the country
and change her immigration status from temporary visitor to permanent resident. All such privileges
were obtain through misrepresentation. Never was the marriage of petitioner to Bañez disclosed to the
immigrationauthorities in her application for temporary visitor's visa and for permanent residency. The
civil status of an alien applicant could influence the exercise of discretion on the part of the immigration
authorities.

There is no law guaranteeing alien woman married to Filipino citizen the right to be admitted,
much less to be given permanent residency, in the Philippines.

The entry of aliens into the country and their admission as immigrants is nbot a matter of right,
even if they are legally married to Filipino citizens.
Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino Husband does not ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen
and does not excuse her from her failure to depart from the country upon expiration of her extended
stay as an alien.

Case No. 3 In re: Vicente Ching Bar Matter

FACTS: Vicente Ching after having completed a Bachelor of Laws course filed an application to take the
1998 Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of this court, he was allowed to take the Bar Examinations,
subject to the condition that he must submit to the court proof of his Philippine citizenship. In
compliance to the resolution, Ching submitted documents for proof of Philippine citizenship. Ching
passed the Bar Examinations. However, because of the questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was
not able to take his oath. Ching filed a manifestation on July 29, 1999, attaching therewith his Affidavit
of Election of Philippine Citizenship.

ISSUE: Whether Vicente Ching is a Filipino Citizen for the admission to the Bar.

HELD: If the citizenship of a person was subject to challenge under the old character, it remains subject
to challenge under the new character even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced before the
affectivity of the new constitution.

In 19365 constitution, no prescribed period within which the election of Philippine citizenship
should be made; the phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the election should be
made within 3 years from reaching the age of majority; As held in Cuenco v. Sec. of Justice.

One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such
citizenship. Sadly, in this case, Ching slept on his golden privilege slipped away from his grasp.

In view of the foregoing, the Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for
admission to the Philippine Bar.

Case No. 4 Mercado vs. Manzano

FACTS: Eduardo Manzano had the highest vote for the May 11, 1998 election for vice mayor of the City
of Makati. The proclamatio of the private respondent in view of a pending petition for disqualification
filed by Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that private respondent was not a citizen of the Philippines but of
the United States.

In his answer, he admitted that he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration
under Alien Certificate of Registration and alleged that he is a Filipino citizen because he was born in
1955 of a Filipino father and a Filipino mother. He was born in the United States, andis considered an
American citizen under US laws. But did not lose his Filipino citizenship.
ISSUE: Whether he is a Filipino citizen and that his dual citizenship will disqualify him to run for any
elective position.

HELD: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously
considered a national by the said state. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose
parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus soli, such a person, ipso facto and
without any voluntary act on his part, concurrently considered a citizen of both state.

The phrase "dual citizenship' must be understood as referring to 'dual allegiance".


Consequently, person with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with
dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their
status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice, if upon the filing of their certificate of
candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship
considering that their conditions is the unavoidable consequence of confliction laws of different states.

There is , therefore no merit in petitioner's contention that the oath of allegiance contained in
private respondent's certificate of candidacy is insufficient to constitute renunciation of American
citizenship.

Case no. 5 Maria Tecson vs. COMELEC

FACTS: Ronal Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr., filed his certificate of candidacy for the
position of President of the Republic of the Philippines. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ representing
himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippiines.

Fonier initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to
cancel his certificate of candidacy upon thesis that FPJ made material misrepresentation in his certificate
of candidacy by claiming to be natural-born Filipino citizen. Granting, petitioner asseverated , that Allan
F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being
an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Petitioner based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of
respondent on two assertions: 1) Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Pualita Gomez
before marriage his marriage to Bessie Kelly ; and 2) even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F.
Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of respondent.

ISSUE: Whether FPJ is a natural-born citizen.

HELD: where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as taking after the citizenship of its mother, it
did so far the benefit of the child; Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, the 1935 constitution
states that among the citizens of the Philippines are "those whose fathers are citizens of the
Philippines".
The 1935 constitution confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens
regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen,
which in turn, depend on whether or not the father of the respondent, Allan Poe, would have himself
been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent
prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father.

But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor
enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy in violation of section78, in relation to section74, of the omnibus election code.