In re: Ching

Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat

Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino,
was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April
1964. Since his birth, Ching has resided in the Philippines.
On 17 July 1998, Ching, after having completed a
Bachelor of Laws course at the St. Louis University in
Baguio City, filed an application to take the 1998 Bar
Examinations. In a Resolution of this Court, dated 1
September 1998, he was allowed to take the Bar
Examinations, subject to the condition that he must submit
to the Court proof of his Philippine citizenship.

On 5 April 1999, the results of the 1998 Bar Examinations

were released and Ching was one of the successful Bar
examinees. The oath-taking of the successful Bar

examinees was scheduled on 5 May 1999. However,

because of the questionable status of Ching’s citizenship,
he was not allowed to take his oath.

The OSG filed its comment on 8 July 1999, stating that

Ching, being the “legitimate child of a Chinese father and
a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a
Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon
reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine
citizenship”
1

in strict compliance with the provisions of

Commonwealth Act No. 625 entitled “An Act Providing for
the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine
Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person Whose Mother is
a Filipino Citizen.”

ISSUE: Since Ching has already elected Philippine citizenship on

15 July 1999, the question raised is whether he has elected
Philippine citizenship within a “reasonable time.” In the
affirmative, whether his citizenship by election retroacted
to the time he took the bar examination.

Ruling: When Ching was born in 1964, the governing charter

was the 1935 Constitution. Under Article IV, Section 1(3) of
the 1935 Constitution, 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.
4

This
right to elect Philippine citizenship was recognized in the
1973 Constitution when it provided that “(t)hose who elect
Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five” are
citizens of the Philippines.
5

Likewise, this recognition by

the 1973 Constitution was carried over to the 1987
Constitution which states that “(t)hose born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who
elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority”
are Philippine citizens.
6

It should be noted, however, that

the 1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions on the election

of Philippine citizenship should not be understood as

having a curative effect on any irregularity in the
acquisition of citizenship for those covered by the 1935
Constitution.
7

If the citizenship of a person was subject to

challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to
challenge under the new charter even if the judicial
challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of
the new Constitution.

Cuenco vs. Secretary of Justice – this case ruled that reasonable time is 3 years

In the present case, Ching, having been born on 11 April

1964, was already thirty-five (35) years old when he
complied with the requirements of C.A. No. 625 on 15 June
1999, or over fourteen (14) years after he had reached the
age of ma-

It should be stated,
in this connection, that the special circumstances invoked
by Ching, i.e., his continuous and uninterrupted stay in
the Philippines and his being a certified public accountant,
a registered voter and a former elected public official,
cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law
specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by election.

Ching cannot invoke the Mallare case because the Mallari case happened before the 1935
Consitution and he was already Filipino when he elected Filipino citizenship because he was
already participating in voting for the elections upon reaching the age of majority. And as for
Ching it was already more than 14 years since he reached the age of majority. The Court ruled
that he slept on his right to elect citizenship.

Republic v. Lim

In her petition, respondent claimed that she was born on

October 29, 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. She alleged that both her Kauswagan and
Iligan City records of birth have four erroneous entries, and
prays that they be corrected.

Third, 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.

Placida Anto, respondent’s mother, testified that she is a

Filipino citizen as her parents were both Filipinos from
Camiguin. She added that she and her daughter’s father
were never married because the latter had a prior
subsisting marriage contracted in China.

ISSUE: THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE

CORRECTION OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF RESPONDENT
CHULE Y. LIM FROM “CHINESE” TO “FILIPINO” DESPITE THE FACT THAT
RESPONDENT NEVER DEMONSTRATED ANY COMPLIANCE
WITH THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTION OF
CITIZENSHIP.

RULING: Citizenship; The constitutional and

statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to
legitimate children.—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 elect Filipino
citizenship when she reached the age of majority.

Same; Same; The exercise of the right of suffrage and the

participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship.—This notwithstanding, the
records show that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when
she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter in
Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the
right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises
constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.

Republic v. Sagun

Respondent is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a

Chinese national, and Marta Borromeo, a Filipino citizen.
She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City3 and did
not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting
married to Alex Sagun, she executed an Oath of Allegiance4
to the Republic of the Philippines. Said document was
notarized by Atty. Cristeta Leung on December 17, 1992,
but was not recorded and registered with the Local Civil
Registrar of Baguio City.
Sometime in September 2005, respondent applied for a
Philippine passport. Her application was denied due to the
citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on
her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.
Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her
election of Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local
Civil Registrar of Baguio City be ordered to annotate the
same on her birth certificate.
After conducting a hearing, the trial court rendered the
assailed Decision on April 3, 2009 granting the petition and
declaring respondent a Filipino citizen.

ISSUES:

I
Whether or not an action or proceeding for judicial declaration
of Philippine citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally
permissible; and,
II
Whether or not an election of Philippine citizenship, made
twelve (12) years after reaching the age of majority, is considered
to have been made “within a reasonable time” as interpreted by
jurisprudence.

RULING:

Petitioner argues that respondent’s petition before the

RTC was improper on two counts: for one, law and
jurisprudence clearly contemplate no judicial action or
proceeding for the declaration of Philippine citizenship; and
for another, the pleaded registration of the oath of
allegiance with the local civil registry and its annotation on
respondent’s birth certificate are the ministerial duties of
the registrar; hence, they require no court order.

The petition is meritorious.

For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that there is

no proceeding established by law, or the Rules for the
judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual.

Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of

electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of
election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the
Philippines; and (3)
registration of the statement of election and of the oath
with the nearest civil registry

Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent

clearly failed to comply with the procedural requirements
for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship.
Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and
the participation in election exercises constitutes a positive
act of election

of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays

down the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by
election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar
acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take
the place of election of Philippine citizenship.