Republic vs.

Sagun required under the law to make an election and if so,

whether she has complied with the procedural
Facts: requirements in the election of Philippine citizenship.
1) Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S.
Chan, a Chinese national, and Marta Borromeo,
a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the
1959 in Baguio City and did not elect Philippine governing charter was the 1935 Constitution, which
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose
2) In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting mothers are citizens of the Philippines and elect Philippine
married to Alex Sagun, she executed an Oath of citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Sec. 1, Art.
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:
Said document was notarized by Atty. Cristeta
Leungon but was not recorded and registered
with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City. Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
3) Sometime in September 2005, respondent
applied for a Philippine passport. Her application xxxx
was denied due to the citizenship of her father
and there being no annotation on her birth
certificate that she has elected Philippine (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
citizenship. and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
4) Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration citizenship.
of her election of Philippine citizenship averring
that she was raised as a Filipino and she is a
registered voter of Precinct No. 0419A of
Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the
Barangay Manuel A. Roxas in Baguio City and
citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother
had voted in local and national elections as
and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father,
shown in the Voter Certification. She asserted
unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected
that by virtue of her positive acts, she has
Philippine citizenship. The right to elect Philippine
effectively elected Philippine citizenship and such
citizenship was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it
fact should be annotated on her record of birth so
provided that [t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship
as to entitle her to the issuance of a Philippine
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen
passport.
hundred and thirty-five are citizens of the Philippines.
5) RTC granted the petition of the respondent,
Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was
declaring respondent a FILIPINO CITIZEN
carried over to the 1987 Constitution which states that
6) Petition through OSG: Petitioner points out that
[t]hose born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers,
while respondent executed an oath of allegiance
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
before a notary public, there was no affidavit of
majority are Philippine citizens. It should be noted,
her election of Philippine citizenship. Additionally,
however, that the 1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions
her oath of allegiance which was not registered
on the election of Philippine citizenship should not be
with the nearest local civil registry was executed
understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in
when she was already 33 years old or 12 years
the acquisition of citizenship for those covered by the 1935
after she reached the age of majority
Constitution. If the citizenship of a person was subject to
Issue: Is an election of Philippine citizenship, made twelve challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to
(12) years after reaching the age of majority, considered to challenge under the new charter even if the judicial
have been made within a reasonable time as interpreted by challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity
jurisprudence? of the new Constitution.

Ruling:

As to the propriety of respondent's petition seeking a Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly
judicial declaration of election of Philippine citizenship, it is failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a
imperative that we determine whether respondent is 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.
Hence, respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the
intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine
citizenship when clearly she has failed to validly elect
Philippine citizenship. As we held in Ching, the prescribed
procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not
a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of
the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine
citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest
civil registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing
requirements, respondents petition before the trial court
must be denied. (Re: Application For Admission to the
Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914,
October 1, 1999, 316 SCRA 1, 7-8.)