1
CITIZENSHIP
2 KINDS OF CITIZENS
1.NATURAL BORN CITIZENS
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship
(PHIL CONST., art. IV, § 2) “Having to perform an act” means that the
act must be personally done by the citizen. (PoeLlamanzares v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016)
2. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (art. IV, § 2)
3. Those who were repatriated and were originally natural born
citizens (Bengzon v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)
4BLUE95: A natural-born citizen can be identified under two approaches: (1)
as a matter of constitutional interpretation that all foundlings found in the
Philippines, being presumptively born to either a Filipino biological father or a
Filipina biological mother, are natural born
and (2) is the definition under Art. 6, § 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution which
requires that the father or the mother is a Filipino citizen. Furthermore, the
Philippines has obligated itself to defend the People against statelessness and
protect and ensure the status and nationality of children immediately upon
birth. Therefore, any interpretation that excludes foundlings from natural-
born citizens is inconsistent with Philippine laws and treaty obligations.
Former Filipino Citizens Running for Public Office
Natural-born Filipinos who have been naturalized elsewhere and wish to run
for elective public office must comply with all of the following requirements:
1. Taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
2. Making a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. This, along with
satisfying the other qualification requirements under relevant laws, makes
one eligible for elective public office.
Q: In 1989, Zeny Reyes married Ben Tulog, a national of the State of Kongo. Under
the laws of Kongo, an alien woman marrying a Kongo national automatically acquires
Kongo citizenship. After her marriage, Zeny resided in Kongo and acquired a Kongo
passport. In 1991, Zeny returned to the Philippines to run for Governor of Sorsogon.
a. Was Zeny qualified to run for Governor? b. Suppose instead of entering politics.
Zeny just got herself elected as vice- president of the Philippine Bulletin, a local
newspaper. Was she qualified to hold that position? (1994 BAR)
A:
a. Under Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution. Zeny retained her Filipino
citizenship. Since she also became a citizen of Kongo, she possesses dual citizenship.
Pursuant to Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code, she is disqualified to run
for governor. In addition, if Zeny returned to the Philippines, less than a year
immediately before the day of the election, Zeny is not qualified to run for Governor
of Sorsogon. Under Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code, a candidate for
governor must be a resident in the province where he intends to run at least one (1)
year immediately preceding the day of the election. By residing in Kongo upon her
marriage in 1989, Zeny abandoned her residence in the Philippines. This is in
accordance with the decision in Caasi v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 229.
b. Although under Section 11(1), Article XVI of the Constitution, mass media must be
wholly owned by Filipino citizens and under Section 2 of the AntiDummy Law aliens
may not intervene in the management of any nationalized business activity, Zeny may
be elected vice president of the Philippine Bulletin, because she has remained a
Filipino citizen. Under Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, Filipino citizens who
marry aliens retains their citizenship unless by their act or omission they are deemed,
under the law, to have renounced it. Zeny is not guilty of any of acts or omission
which will result in loss of citizenship are enumerated in Commonwealth Act No, 63.
As held in Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, a person who possesses dual
citizenship like Zeny may exercise rights of citizenship in both countries and the use
of a passport pertaining to one country does not result in loss of citizenship in the
other country.
Q: Andres Ang was born of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother in Sorsogon,
Sorsogon on January 20, 1973. In 1988, his father was naturalized as a Filipino
citizen. On May 11, 1998, Andres Ang was elected Representative of the First District
of Sorsogon. Juan Bonto who received the second highest number of votes, filed a
petition for Quo Warranto against Ang. The petition was filed with the HRET. Bonto
contends that Ang is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and therefore is
disqualified to be a member of the House. The HRET ruled in favor of Ang. Bonto
filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court. The following issue is raised:
Whether Ang is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. How should this case be
decided? (1998 BAR)
A: Andres Ang should be considered a natural born citizen of the Philippines. He was
born of a Filipino mother on January 20, 1973. This was after the effectivity of the
1973 Constitution on January 17, 1973. Under Section (1), Article VI of the 1973
Constitution, those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines are
citizens of the Philippines. Andres Ang remained a citizen of the Philippines after the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution. Section 1, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution
provides: "The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of
the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;"
Q: A was born in the Philippines of Filipino parents. When martial law was declared
in the Philippines on September 21, 1972, he went to the United States and was
naturalized as an American citizen. After the EDSA Revolution, he came home to the
Philippines and later on reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation. Suppose in
the May 2004 elections he is elected Member of the House of Representatives and a
case is filed seeking his disqualification on the ground that he is not a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, how should the case against him be decided? Explain your
answer. (2002 BAR)
A: The case should be decided in favor of A. As held In Bengson v. HRET, 357
SCRA 545, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. Since A was
a natural-born Filipino citizen before he became a naturalized American citizen, he
was restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino when he repatriated.
Q: Juan Cruz was born of Filipino parents in 1960 in Pampanga. In 1985, he enlisted
in the U.S. Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the United States of
America. In 1990, he was naturalized as an American citizen. In 1994, he was
repatriated under Republic Act No. 2430. During the 1998 National Elections, he ran
for and was elected representative of the First District of Pampanga where he resided
since his repatriation. Was he qualified to run for the position? Explain. (2003 BAR)
A: Cruz was qualified to run as representative of the First District of Pampanga. Since
his parents were Filipino citizens, he was a natural born citizen. Although he became a
naturalized American citizen, under the ruling in Bengson v. HRET, 357 SCRA 545,
by virtue of his repatriation, Cruz was restored to his original status as a natural-born
Filipino citizen.
Q: TCA, a Filipina medical technologist, left in 1975 to work in ZOZ State. In 1988
she married ODH, a citizen of ZOZ. Pursuant to ZOZ's law, by taking an oath of
allegiance, she acquired her husband’s citizenship. ODH died in 2001, leaving her
financially secured. She returned home in 2002, and sought elective office in 2004 by
running for Mayor of APP, her hometown. Her opponent sought to have her
disqualified because of her ZOZ citizenship. She replied that although she acquired
ZOZ’s citizenship because of marriage, she did not lose her Filipino citizenship. Both
her parents, she said, are Filipino citizens. Is TCA qualified to run for Mayor? (2004
BAR) A: On the assumption that TCA took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ to acquire
the citizenship of her husband, she is not qualified to run for mayor. She did not
become a citizen of ZOZ merely by virtue of her marriage; she also took an oath of
allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she lost her Philippine citizenship. (Section 1 [3],
Commonwealth Act No. 63.)
SUMMARY
WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance of law

2. NATURALIZED CITIZENS
Foreigners adopted into the political body of
a nation and clothed with the privileges of a
citizen. (naturalization)
Three Modes of Naturalization
1. Administrative Naturalization (R.A. No.
9139)
covers NATIVEBORN aliens who lived here in the Philippines all their
lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they
were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the
Philippines and affinity to the customs and traditions
Qualifications:
1. The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing therein
since birth;
2. The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the
time of filing of his/her petition;
3. The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the
underlying principles of the Constitution, and must have conducted
himself/herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during his/her
entire period of residence in the Philippines in his relation with the duly
constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she
is living;
4. The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary
education in any public school or private educational institution dully
recognized by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as
part of the school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any
race or nationality: Provided, That should he/she have minor children of
school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools;
5. The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful
occupation, from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her
support and if he/she is married and/or has dependents, also that of
his/her family: Provided, however, That this shall not apply to applicants
who are college degree holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their
citizenship;
6. The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of
the dialects of the Philippines; and
7. The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of
the Filipino people
Disqualifications
1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any
association of group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing all organized governments;
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence,
personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of
their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
4. Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases;
6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines,
have not mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of
the Filipinos;
7. Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the
period of such war; and
8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant
Filipinos the right to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. (R.A. No.
9139, § 4)
2
2. Judicial Naturalization (C.A. No. 473)
covers all aliens regardless of class
Qualifications
1. Not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the
petition;
2. Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of 10 years or more;
3. Of good moral character; believes in the principles underlying the
Philippine Constitution; conducted himself in a proper and
irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence towards
the government and community
4. Must own real estate in the Philippines worth P5,000 or more OR
must have lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation;
5. Able to speak or write English or Spanish or anyone of the principal
languages; and
6. Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the recognized
schools where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of
the residence in the Philippines required of him. (C.A. 473, § 2)
Special Qualifications (ANY will result to reduction of the 10-year period
of continuous residency requirement to 5 years under no. 2 above)
1. Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines
or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political
subdivisions thereof;
2. Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the
Philippines;
3. Married to a Filipino woman;
4. 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 2 years or more; or
5. Born in the Philippines (C.A. 473, § 3)
Denaturalization: Cancellation of Certificate of Naturalization
1. If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was obtained
fraudulently or illegally.
2. If the person naturalized shall, within the five years next following the
issuance of said naturalization certificate, return to his native country or
to some foreign country and establish his permanent residence there:
Provided, That the fact of the person naturalized remaining for more
than one year in his native country or the country of his former
nationality, or two years in any other foreign country, shall be
considered as prima facie evidence of his intention of taking up his
permanent residence in the same.
3. If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of intention.
4. If it is shown that the minor children of the person naturalized failed
to graduate from a public or private high schools recognized by the
Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught as part of the school curriculum,
through the fault of their parents either by neglecting to support them
or by transferring them to another school or schools. A certified copy of
the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be forwarded by
the clerk of the Court to the Department of the Interior and the Bureau
of Justice.
5. If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed himself to be
used as a dummy requiring Philippine citizenship as a requisite for the
exercise, use or enjoyment of a right, franchise or privilege (C.A. No. 473,
§ 18)

3. Legislative Naturalization in the form of a
law enacted by Congress granting Philippine
citizenship to an alien
Effects of Judicial Naturalization
1. The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as
well.
2. The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have
any disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized
*Derivative Naturalization: Citizenship conferred on:
1. Wife of naturalized husband
2. Minor children of naturalized person,
3. Alien woman upon marriage to a national
Naturalization & Res Judicata
A naturalization proceeding not being a judicial adversary proceeding, the
decision rendered therein is not res judicata as to any of the reasons or
matters which would support a judgment cancelling the certificate of
naturalization for illegal or fraudulent procurement
When Res Judicata Applies
Res judicata may only be applied in cases of citizenship when the following
concur:
1. A person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy
where said person is a party;
2. The Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in
the resolution thereof;
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Natural Born Citizens v. Naturalized Citizens
In general, the law cannot treat Natural Born Citizens and those who were
naturalized differently except in the instances where the Constitution itself
makes a distinction. Otherwise there would be a violation of the equal
protection clause.
3
Q: From mainland China where he was born of Chinese parents, Mr. Nya Tsa Chan
migrated to the Philippines in 1894. As of April 11, 1899, he was already a permanent
resident of the Philippine Islands and continued to reside in this country until his
death. During his lifetime and when he was already in the Philippines, Mr. Nya Tsa
Chan married Charing, a Filipina, with whom he begot one son, Hap Chan, who was
born on October 18. 1897. Hap Chan got married also to Nimfa, a Filipina, and one of
their children was Lacqui Chan who was born on September 27. 1936. Lacqui Chan
finished the course Bachelor of Science in Commerce and eventually engaged in
business. In the May 1989 election, Lacqui Chan ran for and was elected
Representative (Congressman). His rival candidate, Ramon Deloria, filed a quo
warranto or disqualification case against him on the ground that he was not a Filipino
citizen. It was pointed out in particular, that Lacqui Chan did not elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of 21. Decide whether Mr. Lacqui Chan suffers
from a disqualification or not. (2001 BAR)
A: Lacqui Chan is a Filipino citizen and need not elect Philippine citizenship. His
father, Hap Chan, was a Spanish subject, was residing in the Philippines on April 11,
1899, and continued to reside in the Philippines. In accordance with Section 4 of the
Political Law 84 Philippine Bill of 1902, he was a Filipino citizen. Hence, in
accordance with Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution. Lacqui Chan is a natural born
Filipino citizen, since his father was a Filipino citizen.
Q: Miguel Sin was born a year ago in China to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother.
His parents met in Shanghai where they were lawfully married just two years ago. Is
Miguel Sin a Filipino citizen? (2003 BAR)
A: YES, Miguel Sin is a Filipino citizen because he is the legitimate child of a
Filipino mother. Under Article IV, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, his mother
retained her Philippine citizenship despite her marriage to an alien husband, and
according to Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, children born of a
Filipino mother are Filipino citizens.
Q: Atty. Emily Go, a legitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother,
was born in 1945. At 21, she elected Philippine citizenship and studied law. She
passed the bar examinations and engaged in private practice for many years. The
Judicial and Bar Council nominated her as a candidate for the position of Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court. But her nomination is being contested by Atty. Juris
Castillo, also an aspirant to the position. She claims that Atty. Emily Go is not a
naturalborn citizen, hence, not qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Is this
contention correct? (2006 BAR)
A: The contention that Atty. Emily Go is not a natural-born citizen is not correct. She
was born before January 17, 1973 of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. She
elected Philippine citizenship when she reached twenty-one years of age. Those who
elect Philippine citizenship under Section 1(3), Article IV of the Constitution are
naturalborn citizens.
Q: Atty. Richard Chua was born in 1964. He is a legitimate son of a Chinese father
and a Filipino mother. His father became a naturalized Filipino citizen when Atty.
Chua was still a minor. Eventually, he studied law and was allowed by the Supreme
Court to take the bar examinations, subject to his submission to the Supreme Court
proof of his Philippine citizenship. Although he never complied with such
requirement, Atty. Chua practiced law for many years until one Noel Eugenio filed
with the Supreme Court a complaint for disbarment against him on the ground that he
is not a Filipino citizen. He then filed with the Bureau of Immigration an affidavit
electing Philippine citizenship. Noel contested it claiming it was filed many years
after Atty. Chua reached the age of majority. Will Atty. Chua be disbarred? Explain.
(2006 BAR)
A: Atty. William Chua should not be disbarred. In accordance with Section 15 of the
Revised Naturalization Act, he became a naturalized Philippine citizen when his
father became a Filipino citizen during his minority. Hence, there was no need for him
to elect Philippine citizenship (Co v. HRET, 199 SCRA 692, [1991]).
Q: Edwin Nicasio, born in the Philippines of Filipino parents and raised in the
province of Nueva Ecija, ran for Governor of his home province. He won and he was
sworn into office.It was recently revealed, however, that Nicasio is a naturalized
American citizen. a. Does he still possess Philippine citizenship? b. If Nicasio was
born in the United States, would he still be a citizen of the Philippines? (1992 BAR)
A:
a. NO. Nicasio no longer possesses Philippine citizenship. As held in Frivaldo vs.
Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245, by becoming a naturalized American
citizen, Nicasio lost his Philippine citizenship. Under Section 1(1) of Commonwealth
Act No. 63, Philippine citizenship is lost by naturalization in a foreign country.
b. If Nicasio was born in the United States, he would still be a citizen of the
Philippines, since his parents are Filipinos. Under Section 1(2), those whose fathers or
mothers are citizens of the Philippines are citizens of the Philippines. Nicasio would
possess dual citizenship, since under American Law persons born in the United States
are American citizens. As held in Aznar vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703, a person
who possesses both Philippine and American citizenship is still a Filipino and does
not lose his Philippine citizenship unless he renounces it.

Q: Discuss the evolution of the principle of jus sanguinis as basis of Filipino
citizenship under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions. (2015 BAR)
A: Section 1. Art. III of the 1935 Constitution adopted the jus sanguinis principles as
the basis of the Filipino citizenship if the father is a Filipino citizen. However,
Subsection 4, Section 1, Art. III of the Constitution provided that if the mother was a
Filipino citizen who lost her Philippine citizenship because of her marriage to a
foreign husband, her children could elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority. Subsection 2, Section 1, Art. III of the 1973 Constitution provided that a
child born of a father or a mother who is a citizen of the Philippines is a Filipino
citizen. Section 2, Art. III of the 1973 Constitution provided that a child whose father
or mother is a Filipino citizen is a Filipino citizen. Subsection 3, Section 1, Art. IV of
the 1987 Constitution provided that a child born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority under
the 1973 Constitution is a natural-born Filipino citizen (Tecson v COMELEC, 424
SCRA 277 [2004]).
Q: Candidate X, a naturalized Filipino citizen, ran for Congressman for the Lone
District of Batanes. After a close electoral contest, he won by a slim margin of 500
votes. His sole opponent, Y, filed an election protest before the Commission on
Election (COMELEC), claiming that X should be disqualified to run for said position
because he is not a naturalborn citizen. While the case was pending, X was
proclaimed by the Provincial Election Supervisor of Batanes as the duly elected
Congressman of the province. (2019 BAR)
a. Distinguish between natural-born and naturalized citizen under the 1987
Constitution, A: Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. [Art. IV, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.]
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who acquire Philippine Citizenship
through either: 1) Judicial naturalization under CA 473 or 2) Administrative
Naturalization Law (R.A. 9139). A third option is Derivative Naturalization, which is
available to alien women married to Filipino husbands found under section 15 of CA
473 which provides that: “Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a
citizen of the Philippines and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be
deemed a citizen of the Philippines.”
b. Is X qualified to run for Congress? Explain. A: NO, X is not qualified to run for
Congress. The Constitution prescribes that no person shall be a Member of the House
of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines [Art. VI, Sec.
6, 1987 Const]. In this case, X is a naturalized citizen and is thus not qualified to run
for Congress.
c. Did X’s proclamation divest the COMELEC of its jurisdiction to decide the case
and vest the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) jurisdiction to hear
the case? Explain.
A: NO, COMELEC maintains its jurisdiction over the matter. To divest the
COMELEC of jurisdiction over election cases of Members of the House of
Representatives, the following requisites must concur:
1. Valid Proclamation;
2. Valid oath; and
3. Assumption of office on June 30. Thus, the mere proclamation of X does not yet
transfer jurisdiction from the COMELEC to the HRET. [Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 207264, October 22, 2013]
Q: Onofre, a natural born Filipino citizen, arrived in the United States in 1985. In
1990, he married Salvacion, a Mexican, and together they applied for and obtained
American citizenship in 2001. In 2015, the couple and their children --Alfred, 21
years of age, Robert, 16, and Marie, 14, who were all born in the U.S. -- returned to
the Philippines on June 1, 2015. On June 15, 2015, informed that he could reacquire
Philippine citizenship without losing his American citizenship, Onofre went home to
the Philippines and took the oath of allegiance prescribed under R.A. No. 9225. On
October 28, 2015, he filed a Certificate of Candidacy to run in the May 9, 2016
elections for the position of Congressman in his home province of Pala wan, running
against re- electionist Congressman Profundo. [a] Did Onofre's reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship benefit his wife, Salvacion, and their minor children and confer
upon them Filipino citizenship? Explain your answer. [b] Before the May 9, 2016
elections, Profundo's lawyer filed a Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the
Certificate of Candidacy against Onofre. What grounds can he raise in his Petition to
support it? Explain your answer. (2016 BAR)
A:
(a) The reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Onofre did not automatically make
his American wife, Salvacion, a Filipino citizen. Nowhere does Republic Act no. 9225
provide that the foreign wife of a former Filipino citizen who reacquired his Filipino
citizenship will automatically become a Filipino citizen. Robert who is 16 years old,
and Marie, who is 14 years old, also became Filipino citizens. The unmarried children
below eighteen years of age, of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship are also
deemed citizens of the Philippines (Section 4 of RA 9225)
(b) The lawyer of Congressman Profundo can ask for the cancellation of the
certificate of candidacy on the ground that he did not execute an affidavit renouncing
his American citizenship as required by Section 5(2) of RA 9225 and he lacked one-
year residence in the Philippines as required in by Section 6, Article VI, of the
Constitution.
4
Q: What are the effects of marriages of: 1. A citizen to an alien; 2. An alien to a
citizen; on their spouses and children? Discuss. (1999, 1989 BAR)
A: 1. According to Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, Filipino citizens who
marry aliens retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed,
under the law, to have renounced it. 2. According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v.
Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of the Revised
Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a
Filipino citizen provided she possesses none of the disqualifications for naturalization.
A foreign man who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship.
However, under Section 3 of the Revised Naturalization Act, in such a case the
residence requirement for naturalization will be reduced from ten (10) to five (5)
years. Under Section 1(2), Article IV of the Constitution, the children of an alien and
a Filipino citizen are citizens of the Philippines.
Q: Rosebud is a natural-born Filipino woman who got married to Rockcold, a citizen
of State Frozen. By virtue of the laws of Frozen, any person who marries its citizens
would automatically be deemed its own citizen. After ten years of marriage, Rosebud,
who has split her time between the Philippines and Frozen, decided to run for
Congress. Her opponent sought her disqualification, however, claiming that she is no
longer a natural-born citizen. In any event, she could not seek elective position since
she never renounced her foreign citizenship pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act (R.A. No. 9225). Is Rosebud disqualified to run by reason of
citizenship? (2014 BAR)
A: NO, because Rosebud never lost her status as a natural-born citizen by reason of
marriage to a foreigner. In addition to her status as a natural born citizen, she acquired
the citizenship of her husband by operation of law and not by a voluntary act of
acquisition thereof and voluntary renunciation of her former citizenship. In relation to
election protest, what is prohibited is dual allegiance. Allegiance to a foreign state is
acquired through an express and voluntary act of renouncing once allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and swearing allegiance to a foreign state e.g. enlisting in
the military services of another state.
Q: Enzo, a Chinese national, was granted Philippine citizenship in a decision rendered
by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on January 10, 1956. He took his oath of
office on June 5, 1959. In 1970, the Solicitor General filed a petition to cancel his
citizenship on the ground that in July 1969 the Court of Tax Appeals found that Enzo
had cheated the government of income taxes for the years 1956 to 1959. Said decision
of the Tax Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1969. Between 1960 and
1970, Enzo had acquired substantial real property in the Philippines. a. Has the action
for cancellation of Enzo’s citizenship prescribed? b. Can Enzo ask for the denial of
the petition on the ground that he had availed of the Tax Amnesty for his tax
liabilities? c. What is the effect on the petition for cancellation of Enzo's citizenship if
Enzo died during the pendency of the hearing on said petition? (1994 BAR)
A:
a. NO, the action has not prescribed. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748,
a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled at any time if it was fraudulently
obtained by misleading the court regarding the moral character of the petitioner.
b. NO. Enzo cannot ask for the denial of the petition for the cancellation of his
certificate of naturalization on the ground that he had availed of the tax amnesty. In
accordance with the ruling in Republic vs. Li Yao. 224 SCRA 748, the tax amnesty
merely removed all the civil, criminal and administrative liabilities of Enzo. It did not
obliterate his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct.
c. On the assumption that he left a family, the death of Enzo does not render the
petition for the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization moot. As held in
Republic vs. Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748, the outcome of the case will affect his wife and
children.
Q: Lim Tong Biao, a Chinese citizen applied for and was granted Philippine
citizenship by the court. He took his oath as citizen of the Philippines in July 1963. In
1975, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a petition to cancel his Philippine
citizenship for the reason that in August 1963, the Court of Tax Appeals found him
guilty of tax evasion for deliberately understating his income taxes for the years 1959-
1961. a. Could Lim Tong Biao raise the defense of prescription of the action for
cancellation of his Filipino citizenship? b. Supposing Lim Tong Biao had availed of
the tax amnesty of the government for his tax liabilities, would this constitute a valid
defense to the cancellation of his Filipino citizenship? (1998 BAR)
A:
a. NO, Lim Tong Biao cannot raise the defense of prescription. As held in Republic
vs. Go Bon Lee, 1 SCRA 1166, 1170, a decision granting citizenship is not res
judicata and the right of the government to ask for the cancellation of a certificate
cancellation is not barred by the lapse of time.
b. The fact that Lim Tong Biong availed of the tax amnesty is not a valid defense to
the cancellation of his Filipino citizenship. In Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748,
754, the Supreme Court held: “xxx the tax amnesty does not have the effect of
obliterating his lack of good moral character and irreproachable conduct which are
grounds for denaturalization."

MODES OF LOSING/RETAINING CITIZENSHIP
Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens
shall retain their citizenship, unless by their
act or omission they are deemed, under the
law, to have renounced it. (PHIL CONST., art.
IV, § 4)
A. REACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
1. Naturalization
2. Legislative Act
3.Repatriation
Repatriation Repatriation results in the recovery of the original
nationality. if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a
natural-born Filipino. (Bengzon v. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)
Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may
re-acquire the same via repatriation proceedings. This involves taking an
oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry. (C.A. No. 63,
sec. 4)
4BLUE95: Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege
granted by the State. if an applicant for repatriation meets the
requirements of the law for it is an inherent power of the State to
choose who will be its citizens, and who can reacquire citizenship once it
is lost. (Tabasa v. CA, G.R. No. 125793, Aug. 29, 2006)
4BLUE95: As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization,
repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil
Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided.
He would not even need to file a petition in court. (Bengson III v. HRET,
G.R. No.142840, May 7, 2001) Who May be Repatriated: 1. Filipino
women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens 2.
Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship,
including their minor children, on account of political or economic
necessity (R.A. No. 8171,
How is Repatriation Effected
1. By taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines.
2. Registration in the proper civil registry and in the Bureau of
Immigration.
3. The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon cancel the pertinent
alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate of
identification as Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen
4BLUE95: effective date is the date of application for repatriation not
the date when repatriation was approved
5
Repatriation under R.A. No. 9225
reacquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance. This
reacquisition works to restore natural-born status as though it was never lost
at all.
Reacquisition v. Retention
Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a
foreign country shall re-acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect,
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath.
Repatriation and Domicile
To reacquire domicile he must provide proof of intent to stay in the
Philippines. After he does that, his occasional absence from the recovered
domicile does not have the effect of removing him from the domicile for as
long as he manifests animus manendi et revertendi.
Who Cannot be Repatriated
1. Person Opposed to organized government or affiliated with any
association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines
opposing organized government;
2. Person defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of Violence,
personal assault, or association for the predominance of their ideas;
3. Person convicted of crimes involving Moral turpitude; or
4. Person suffering from Mental alienation or incurable contagious
diseases.
Q: Julio Hortal was born of Filipino parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, he
became a naturalized citizen in another country. Later, he reacquired Philippine
citizenship. Could Hortal regain his status as natural born Filipino citizen? Would
your answer be the same whether he reacquires his Filipino citizenship by repatriation
or by act of Congress? Explain. (1999 BAR)
A: Julio Mortal can regain his status as a natural born citizen by repatriating. Since
repatriation involves restoration of a person to citizenship previously lost by
expatriation and Julio Mortal was previously a natural born citizen, in case he
repatriates he will be restored to his status as a natural born citizen. If he reacquired
his citizenship by an act of Congress, Julio Hortal will not be a natural born citizen,
since he reacquired his citizenship by legislative naturalization.
Q: Cruz, a Filipino by birth, became an American citizen. In his old age he has
returned to the country and wants to become a Filipino again. As his lawyer,
enumerate the ways by which citizenship may be reacquired. (2000 BAR) Is the
insurance company liable under its policy? Why? (1992 BAR)
A: Cruz may reacquire Philippine citizenship in the following ways: 1. By
naturalization; 2. By repatriation pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171; and 3. By direct
act of Congress (Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 63).
Q: Warlito, a natural-born Filipino, took up permanent residence in the United States,
and eventually acquired American citizenship. He then married Shirley, an American,
and sired three children. In August 2009, Warlito decided to visit the Philippines with
his wife and children: Johnny, 23 years of age; Warlito, Jr., 20; and Luisa, 17. While
in the Philippines, a friend informed him that he could reacquire Philippine citizenship
without necessarily losing U.S. nationality. Thus, he took the oath of allegiance
required under R.A. 9225.
a. Having reacquired Philippine citizenship, is Warlito a natural-born or a Political
Law 88 naturalized Filipino citizen today? Explain your answer.
b. With Warlito having regained Philippine citizenship, will Shirley also become a
Filipino citizen? If so, why? If not, what would be the most speedy procedure for
Shirley to acquire Philippine citizenship? Explain
c. Do the children --- Johnny, Warlito Jr., and Luisa --- become Filipino citizens with
their father's reacquisition of Philippine citizenship? Explain your answer. (2009
BAR)
A:
a. Warlito is a natural-born Filipino citizen. Repatriation of Filipinos results in the
recovery of his original nationality. Since Warlito was a natural-born citizen before he
lost his Philippine citizenship, he was restored to his former status as a naturalborn
Filipino citizen (Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 357 SCRA
545; RA 2630).
b. Shirley will not become a Filipino citizen, because under RA 9225, Warlito’s
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship did not extend its benefits to Shirley. She
should instead file with the Bureau of Immigration a petition for the cancellation of
her alien certificate of registration on the ground that in accordance with Section 15 of
the Naturalization Law, because of her marriage with Warlito, she should be deemed
to have become a Filipino citizen. She must allege and prove that she possessed none
of the disqualification to become a naturalized Filipino citizen (Burca v. Republic 51
SCRA 248).
c. Under Section 18 of RA 9225, only the unmarried children who are below eighteen
years of age of those who reacquire Philippine citizenship shall be deemed Filipino
citizens. Thus, only Luisa, who is seventeen years old, became a Filipino citizen.

B. LOSING CITIZENSHIP
1. Naturalization in a foreign country (C.A. 63, § 1(1))
2. Express renunciation or expatriation (CA 63, §1(2))
3. Taking an oath of allegiance to another country upon reaching the age
of majority;
4. Marriage by a Filipino woman to an alien, if by the laws of her
husband’s country, she becomes a citizen thereof.
5. Accepting a commission and serving in the armed forces of another
country, unless there is an offensive/defensive pact with the country, or
it maintains armed forces in RP with RP’s consent;
6. Denaturalization;
7. Being found by final judgment to be a deserter of the AFP 2.
6
DUAL CITIZEN AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE
DUAL CITIZEN. 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.
DUAL ALLEGIANCE. Refers to the situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more
states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual’s volition.
4BLUE95: for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon
the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine
citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship
considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of
conflicting laws of different states
TRUE or FALSE. Dual citizenship is not the same as dual allegiance. (2009
BAR)
A: TRUE. Dual citizenship 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 those states and is involuntary. On the other hand, dual
allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes by
some positive and voluntary act, loyalty to two or more states (Mercado v.
Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 [1999]).
Q: H, a naturalized American citizen who later became a dual citizen under
Republic Act No. 9225 (the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act),
decided to run for Congress and thus, filed a certificate of candidacy (CoC). A
citizen argued that H is ineligible for the position because of his status as a dual
citizen. H responded that his act of filing a CoC amounted to his renunciation of
foreign citizenship, rendering him eligible for the position. (2019 BAR)
a. Was H’s filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship? Explain.
A: NO, H’s filing of a CoC is not sufficient to renounce foreign citizenship.
Section 5(3) of RA 9225 requires that “Those appointed to any public office
shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of
office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country
where they took that oath”.
b. Assuming that H is a dual citizen because his parents are Filipino citizens and
he was born in California, USA, was filing of a CoC sufficient to renounce his
foreign citizenship? Explain. A: NO, the filing of his CoC was not sufficient to
renounce his foreign citizenship. R.A. No. 9225 categorically demands natural-
born Filipinos who re-acquire their citizenship and seek elective office, to
execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships
before an authorized public officer prior to or simultaneous to the filing of their
certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. The
rule applies to all those who have re-acquired their Filipino citizenship, without
regard as to whether they are still dual citizens or not. (Sobejana-Condon v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012)
FOUNDLINGS
Natural Born Citizens As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born
citizens.
While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no
restrictive language which would definitely exclude foundlings either. No such intent
or language permits discrimination against foundlings. On the contrary, all three
Constitutions (1935, 1973, 1987) guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the
laws.
4BLUE95: Concluding that foundlings are not natural-born Filipino citizens is
tantamount to permanently discriminating against our foundling citizens. Art II, Sec.
26 and Art III Sec. 1 guarantees equal protection of the laws and equal access to
opportunities for public service, respectively.
4BLUE95: Case of Grace Poe..” Aside from her being left in front of a Catholic church
in a place which was populated mainly of Filipinos, Petitioner’s physical features are
consistent with the physical features of many Filipinos and that the latest statistic
show that in the year she was born, Petitioner had a 99.8% chance of being born a
Filipino. The conclusion that Petitioner is a natural-born Filipina is based on fair and
reasonable reading of constitutional provisions, statutes, and international norms
having the effect of law, and on the evidence presented before the COMELEC”