PROBLEM #1

Sheila is an American citizen applying for a naturalization process in the Philippines. She
contends that the qualification of the ten-year residency should be reduced to five years because
she served as a teacher in the Philippines. Jonald interposed Sheila’s petition because Sheila
taught in a school in the Philippines yet, exclusively for foreign individuals with no Filipino
students therein. If you were the Judge, will you grant Sheila’s petition? Why or why not?
ANSWER:
No, I will not grant Sheila’s petition. According to Commonwealth Act 473, Section 3 (4), the
ten years of continuous residence required under the second condition of the 2nd Section of the
said Act shall be understood as reduced to five years for any petitioner having been engaged as a
teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the
exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race, in any of the
branches of education or industry for a period of not less than two years. In Sheila’s case,
wherein she teaches at a school exclusively for foreign individuals doesn’t qualify in reducing
her continuous residency requirement for naturalization. Therefore, I will deny the motion.
PROBLEM #2
Arvene served as a member of the Philippine Army. He was sent by his commander to study and
undergo training abroad with the approval of the Commander-in-Chief. During his studies and
training outside the Philippines, a war broke out between the Philippines and Japan. He was
unable to return to the Philippines since he still needs to finish the course of his training and
studies. Months after the war, Arvene returned to the Philippines. The Solicitor General moved
to file a petition for the cancellation of Arvene’s citizenship due to the fact that he was a deserter.
Is the Solicitor General correct? Why or why not?
ANSWER:
The Solicitor General is mistaken. Under Commonwealth Act 63, Section 1 (6), a Filipino citizen
may lose his citizenship by having been declared, by competent authority, a deserter of the
Philippine army, navy or air corps in time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or
amnesty has been granted. Since Arvene was sent to undergo a training and study abroad with
the approval of the President, he didn’t leave without authorization. Hence, Arvin is not a
deserter.

PROBLEM #3
Allan applied for a naturalization process maintaining that he already acquired the ten-year
residency requirement. Julie filed a petition to deny Allan’s application because records have
revealed that Allan came back to America and stay there for a week to get the things he left
there. Will you grant Allan’s petition or Julie’s petition? Why?
ANSWER:
I will take Allan’s grant because he didn’t violate any qualifications for the naturalization
process
PROBLEM #4
Kristel went to judicial authorities to apply for the naturalization process. Joy learned that Kristel
incurred a traffic violation during her stay in Singapore. With this, Joy interposed Kristel’s
application contending that Kristel committed a crime related to the traffic violation. If you are
the Judge, will you deny Kristel’s application based on the ground that Joy has presented? Why
or why not?
ANSWER:
Yes, as stated in Commonwealth Act 473, Section 4, persons convicted of crimes involving
moral turpitude cannot be naturalized as Philippine citizens. Considering that Kristel committed
a crime related to traffic violation, she is disqualified for naturalization. Therefore, the
application of Kristel is denied.

PROBLEM #5
Marivic, a natural-born Filipino citizen, lived during the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution.
Sometime in 1976, she met Mark, an American citizen. Their relationship developed
romantically and both of them decided to get married in America. After their marriage, both of
them had four children. However, years after their sweet relationship, everything turned sour.
They both decided to get a divorce which was granted by the judicial authorities in America.
Marivic left her children and Mark and went back to the Philippines in 1990. Marivic went to the
office of the COMELEC to search her precinct number and voter’s number. However, Bong
contested such political right of Marivic to vote since Marivic had married an American citizen
and lived in America. If you are the commissioner, will you still give Marivic her political right
to vote? Why or why not?
ANSWER:
Yes. She is still a citizen of the Philippines even though she married an American citizen under
Article 3, Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution since she didn’t renounce her citizenship during her
stay in America. So, Marivic has the right to vote and all of the other human rights because after
all, she is a Philippine citizen.