Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW of BENJAMIN M.
DACANAY
B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until
he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments.
He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical
aid program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in
May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that
day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines
and now intends to resume his law practice.
Issue:
WON petitioner may still resume practice? YES
Held:
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an applicant for admission to the
bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral
character and a resident of the Philippines.5 He must also produce before this Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines.
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to
engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a
privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a
citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is
because “all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225].” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
with RA 9225.
Before he can can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
o the updating and payment of of IBP membership dues;
o the payment of professional tax;
o the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education;
this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of
o the retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
Labo vs COMELEC
1. In 1988, Ramon Labo, Jr. was elected as mayor of Baguio City. His rival, Luis
Lardizabal filed a petition for quo warranto against Labo as Lardizabal asserts that
Labo is an Australian citizen hence disqualified;
2. Labo was naturalized as an Australian after he married an Australian.  Labo avers
that his marriage with an Australian did not make him an Australian; that at best he
has dual citizenship, Australian and Filipino; that even if he indeed became an
3. Australian when he married an Australian citizen, such citizenship was lost when
his marriage with the Australian was later declared void for being bigamous.
Labo married an Australian National and later became a naturalized Australian by
performing the following steps:
 must take an oath of allegiance or make an affirmation of allegiance
o "I ..., renouncing all other allegiance ..." etc. This need not
necessarily have any effect on his former nationality as this
would depend on the citizenship laws of his former country
CA No. 63, which enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
lost. Among these are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express
renunciation of citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
the Constitution or laws of a foreign country, all of which are applicable to the
petitioner
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Labo can retain his public office.
Held:
No. Labo did not question the authenticity of evidence presented against him. He
was naturalized as an Australian in 1976. It was not his marriage to an Australian
that made him an Australian. It was his act of subsequently swearing by taking an
oath of allegiance to the government of Australia. He did not dispute that he needed
an Australian passport to return to the Philippines in 1980; and that he was listed as
an immigrant here. It cannot be said also that he is a dual citizen.
Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with
by law. He lost his Filipino citizenship when he swore allegiance to Australia. He
cannot also claim that when he lost his Australian citizenship, he became solely a
Filipino.
To restore his Filipino citizenship, he must be naturalized or repatriated or be
declared as a Filipino through an act of Congress – none of this happened.

Djumuntan vs Domingo
Facts:
- Filipino man entered into a subsequent marriage with an Indonesian
woman
The Indonesian woman entered into the Philippines together her two children.
Banez executed an "Affidavit of Guaranty and Support," for his "guests," [ Petitioner
and her children were admitted to the Philippines as temporary visitors under
Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940.]
- She was about to face deportation, but she asserted the fact that she is
married to a Filipino thus, deportation should be dismissed.
Issue: Whether or not marriage of a Filipino to a foreign spouse excuses the alien
from immigration laws?
The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American
citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual
citizen. 
by declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a
permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support
the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that
he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of
this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and
anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.
To begin with, 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 states

Held:
There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino citizens the right to be
admitted, much less to be given permanent residency, in the Philippines.

The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does not withdraw her from the
operation of the immigration laws governing the admission and exclusion of aliens

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 the expiration of her extended stay here as an alien

Mercado vs Manzano
- Manzano and Mercado were candidates for vice mayor of Makati.
- Petitioner wants the COMELEC to cancel and disqualify Manzano as a
Vice Mayoralty Candidate on the ground of dual citizenship [he was born
in 1955 of a Filipino father and a Filipino mother.  He was born in the
United States, San Francisco, California, on September 14, 1955, and is
considered an American citizen under US Laws. ]
- He argues that merely taking part in Philippine elections is not sufficient
evidence of renunciation and that, in any event, as the alleged
renunciation was made when private respondent was already 37 years
old, it was ineffective as it should have been made when he reached the
age of majority

Issue: Whether or not Manzano is qualified to run for office as a Vice Mayor?

Held: Yes, he is fit for public office.

by filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private
respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American
citizenship.