SHEILA MARIE G. UY-BELLEZA v.

THE CIVIL REGISTRAR OF TACLOBAN CITY

G.R. No. 218354
September 15, 2021
Hernando, J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
The Citizen in Relation to the State; I. Citizenship; B. Modes of Acquiring Citizenship

Petitioner(s): SHEILA MARIE G. UY-BELLEZA

Respondent(s): THE CIVIL REGISTRAR OF TACLOBAN CITY

SUMMARY:
Petitioner Sheila Marie Uy-Belleza filed a petition for correction of entry in the civil registry to change from Chinese to
Filipino the nationality of her mother, Adelaida Go Uy, in petitioner’s birth certificate. In support of her petition, petitioner
submitted six pieces of documentary evidence, including: two of her birth certificates, one issued by the NSO and the
other issued by the local civil registrar; the marriage contract of her parents; her mother’s certificate of registration as a
voter, which was issued by the COMELEC; her brother’s birth certificate, which indicated the nationality of their mother as
Filipino; and lastly, her mother’s expired Philippine passport. Petitioner’s mother, Adelaida, also took the stand herself and
alleged that she was an illegitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. She testified that she was not able
to register her birth because she was born during World War II. The RTC granted the petition, but the CA reversed. The
CA held that the evidence presented by petitioner did not satisfactorily and conclusively establish that her mother was a
Filipino citizen. Other than the bare claim of Adelaida that she was an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino
mother, the CA noted that no other evidence was presented by petitioner to corroborate this claim. The mere exercise of
suffrage and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of election of Philippine
citizenship. Lastly, the CA held that Adelaida’s passport could not be used as proof of her Filipino citizenship because
Adelaida herself testified that she merely executed an affidavit in order to secure the passport.

The Supreme Court held that petitioner was able to sufficiently establish that her mother was a Filipino citizen and her
mother’s nationality in her birth certificate should be corrected. Adelaida’s Philippine passport, the birth certificate of
petitioner’s brother, and Adelaida’s testimony prove that Adelaida is a Filipino citizen. The first page of a Philippine
passport expressly recognizes the bearer as its citizen. That Adelaida merely executed an affidavit instead of submitting a
birth certificate when she applied for a passport cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in its issuance. The
requirement in the Philippine Passport Act that a birth certificate or a baptismal certificate must be submitted when
applying for a Philippine passport does not apply to Adelaida, since Adelaida’s passport was issued in 1988, while the
Philippine Passport Act was enacted in 1996.

The requirement in Article IV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution that a child must elect Filipino citizenship when he or she
reaches the age of majority applied only to legitimate children. In this case, Adelaida is an illegitimate child, considering
that her Chinese father and Filipino mother never got married. Therefore, Adelaida did not have to comply with the
constitutional requirement in order to become a Filipino citizen. As an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, Adelaida
automatically acquired Filipino citizenship by birth.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● Petitioner Sheila Marie Uy-Belleza filed a petition for correction of entry in the civil registry to change from
Chinese to Filipino the nationality of her mother, Adelaida Go Uy, in petitioner’s birth certificate.
○ Petitioner submitted the following pieces of evidence in support of her petition:
■ Her Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office;
■ Her Certificate of Birth issued by the local civil registrar;
■ The marriage contract of her parents, issued by the National Statistics Office;
■ Her mother’s Certificate of Registration as a Voter, issued by the Commission on Elections;

JAVIER - LAW 172, PROF. LOANZON

 ■ The Certificate of Live Birth of petitioner’s brother, Jerome Uy, indicating the citizenship of their
mother as “Fil”;
■ Her mother’s expired Philippine passport.
○ Apart from the above pieces of documentary evidence, petitioner testified that her mother, Adelaida, is a
Filipino citizen.
○ Adelaida also took the stand and alleged that she was an illegitimate daughter of a Chinese national, Lino
Go, and a Filipino citizen, Teodora Guinto. She further alleged that she failed to present her birth
certificate because she was born in 1942, during World War II, and she could not have registered her
birth.
● The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and ordered the Civil Registry of Tacloban City to correct the error in
petitioner’s birth certificate and change the nationality of her mother Adelaida from Chinese to Filipino.
○ The Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration, but the trial court dismissed it and
gave weight to the Philippine passport and voter’s certification issued to Adelaida.
● The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the evidence presented by petitioner did not satisfactorily and
conclusively establish that her mother Adelaida was a Filipino citizen.
○ Other than the bare claim of Adelaida that she was an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino
mother, the CA noted that no other evidence was presented by petitioner to corroborate this claim.
Petitioner could have presented, for instance, a baptismal certificate or the testimony of relatives.
○ The CA further held that Adelaida’s exercise of suffrage could not have constituted a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship. The law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of
citizenship by election. The mere exercise of suffrage and other similar acts showing exercise of
Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of election of Philippine citizenship.
■ The exercise of rights and privileges granted only to Filipinos is not conclusive proof of
citizenship. A person may misrepresent himself or herself as a Filipino and enjoy the rights and
privileges of citizens of the Philippines.
○ Neither could Adelaida’s citizenship be proven by her Philippine passport. Adelaida herself testified that
she merely executed an affidavit for the purpose of securing a Philippine passport. The CA noted that the
propriety and legality of the issuance of a Philippine passport to Adelaida on the basis of a mere affidavit
was beyond its cognizance.

ISSUE(S), RULE, AND ANALYSIS:

ISSUE(S):
WON petitioner was able to sufficiently establish that her mother was a Filipino citizen and her mother’s nationality in her
birth certificate should be corrected — YES

RULE (APPLICABLE LAW/JURISPRUDENCE):

Const. (1935), art. IV, § 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1)  Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected
to public office in the Philippine Islands.

(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship.

(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

ANALYSIS:
JAVIER - LAW 172, PROF. LOANZON
 RULING
YES, Adelaida’s Philippine passport,
Jerome Uy’s birth certificate, and
Adelaida’s testimony sufficiently
establish that Adelaida is a Filipino
citizen. The nationality of Adelaida in
petitioner’s birth certificate should be
corrected from “Chinese” to “Filipino.”
CONCLUSION/HOLDING:
Adelaida Go Uy is a Filipino citizen and her citizenship in her daughter Sheila Uy-Belleza’s birth certificate must be
corrected. Adelaida’s Philippine passport and testimony, as well has her son Jerome Uy’s birth certificate, sufficiently
APPLICATION OF RULE BASED ON FACTS
A Philippine passport is an official document of identity of Philippine
citizenship. It is proof that the country that issued the passport recognizes the
person named therein as its national.
 The first page of a Philippine passport expressly recognizes the
bearer as its citizen. It says: “The Government of the Republic of the
Philippines requests all concerned to permit the bearer, a citizen of
the Philippines, to pass safely and freely and, in case of need, to give
him/her all lawful aid and protection.”
 That Adelaida merely executed an affidavit instead of submitting a
birth certificate when she applied for a passport cannot overturn the
presumption of regularity in its issuance. To successfully overcome
the presumption, the evidence must be clear and convincing.
 The requirement in R.A. No. 8239 (“Philippine Passport Act of 1996”)
that a birth certificate or a baptismal certificate must be submitted
when applying for a Philippine passport does not apply to Adelaida.
Adelaida’s passport was issued in 1988, while R.A. No. 8239 was
enacted in 1996, or eight years after the issuance of Adelaida’s
Philippine passport.
 The OSG never questioned the genuineness and authenticity of
Adelaida’s Philippine passport.
The birth certificate of petitioner’s brother indicated the citizenship of Adelaida
as “Fil.” The genuineness and authenticity of this birth certificate was not
disputed by the OSG. To disallow the correction in petitioner’s birth certificate
would perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of petitioner
and her brother.
The testimony of Adelaida regarding her illegitimacy and the citizenship of her
mother, Teodora Guinto, was never questioned by the prosecution on cross-
examination.
 The prosecution did not file any opposition to the petition. The
prosecution also did not file any comment or opposition when
petitioner filed her formal offer of evidence. Neither did the
prosecution present any countervailing evidence to defeat petitioner’s
petition for correction of entry.
The requirement in Article IV, Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution (as well as
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625) that a child must elect Filipino
citizenship when he or she reaches the age of majority applied only to
legitimate children. In this case, Adelaida is an illegitimate child, considering
that her Chinese father and Filipino mother never got married. Therefore,
Adelaida did not have to comply with the aforementioned constitutional and
statutory requirement in order to become a Filipino citizen. As an illegitimate
child of a Filipino mother, Adelaida automatically acquired Filipino citizenship
by birth. Stated differently, Adelaida became a Filipino without having to elect
Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.
JAVIER - LAW 172, PROF. LOANZON
prove that she is a Filipino citizen. She did not have to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority
because that constitutional and statutory requirement applied only to legitimate children. Adelaida is an illegitimate child;
her father, a Chinese national, and her mother, a Filipino citizen, were never married.

DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The March 20, 2015
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04404 is SET ASIDE. The March 18, 2011 Resolution and March 23,
2012 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, Branch 34, are REINSTATED.
H

SEPARATE OPINION:

JAVIER - LAW 172, PROF. LOANZON