ANTONIO BENGSON III v.

HRET & TEODORO CRUZ

G.R. No. 142840 | May 7, 2001
Kapunan, J.

Doctrine: Repatriation is achieved by merely taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines

and registering the said oath to the Local Civil Registry and will result in the recovery of a
person’s original nationality.

FACTS
In the case at bar, the citizenship of respondent Cruz was being questioned in relation to
the constitutional requirement that “no person shall be a Member of the House of
Representatives unless he is a natural born-citizen. It is said that respondent Cruz was a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines, being born in Tarlac, of Filipino parents. The applicable law back
then was still the 1935 Constitution. However, Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Cops
and, without consent of the country, took an oath of allegiance to the United States which
resulted to the loss of his Filipino citizenship pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 63. He was
later then naturalized as a U.S. Citizen. However, respondent reacquired his Philippine
citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act 2630. He then ran for and was elected as the
Representative of Second District of Pangasinan. This prompted the petitioner to file for a Quo
Warranto Ad Cautelam before the HRET against respondent on the ground that the latter is not
qualified to be a member of the House because he is not a natural-born citizen as mandated by
the Constitution. The HRET dismissed said petition and declared respondent as the duly elected
winner.
On appeal, petitioner asserts that respondent Cruz is not a natural born-citizen because he
had ceased being such in view of the loss and renunciation of his citizenship, that respondent
Cruz did not validly reacquired his citizenship and that such reacquisition could not legally and
constitutionally restore his natural-born status.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still
be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship?
YES
Petitioner’s main contention is that Article IV, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution
expressly states that natural-born citizens are those who are citizens from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect such citizenship. He argues that since
respondent Cruz lost his Filipino citizenship when he swore allegiance to the United
States and reacquired the same by repatriation, he cannot be declared as a natural-born
citizen. However, the petitioner is mistaken.
The 1987 Constitution enumerates who are Filipino citizens and provides that
there are two ways of acquiring citizenship- either by birth, or by naturalization. The
former contemplates a situation in which person is born as a Filipino while naturalized
citizens are those that has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law in order to become a Filipino citizen. The decision
granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant
has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules;
or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any
Government announced policies.
Moreover, Filipinos who have lost their citizenship may reacquire the same either
through (1) naturalization (2) repatriation (3) direct act of Congress. Naturalization refers
to the process of reacquisition of Filipino citizens of their citizenship by possessing
certain qualifications and none of the disqualifications as provided by Sec. 4 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473. Repatriation, on the other hand, contemplates a process in
which certain people who lost their citizenship can reacquire the same by simply taking
of an oath of allegiance to the Republic and registering the said oath in the Local Civil
Registry and which will result to the recovery of the original nationality. It is available
to those who lost their citizenships through (1) desertion of armed force; (2) service in the
armed forces of the allied forces in World War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of the
United States at any other time; (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and (5)
political and economic necessity. The result of repatriation is the recovery of the original
nationality.
In the present case, respondent Cruz reacquired his original nationality through
repatriation when he took the required oath and registered the same to the Civil Registry.
It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.
Lastly, the contention that respondent Cruz is no longer a natural-born citizen
since he had to perform an act to regain his citizenship is untenable. It is because the
present Constitution only naturalized Filipinos as not natural-born citizens. A citizen who
is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to
obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2