ROWELA L. DESCALLAR

1. TECSON VS COMELEC (G.R. 161434 , March 3,2004)

a.) Why was FPJ considered a natural born (?) citizen?

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.

The Supreme Court concluded that if Lorenzo Pou is assumed to be in the Philippines in April 11, 1891, being a Spanish subject who continued to reside in the Philippines without preserving his allegiance to the Crown of Spain, then he was converted to a Filipino citizen in accordance with the Philippine Bill of 1902. Lorenzo Pou now being a Filipino, Allan Poe is also a Filipino upon birth and Fernando Poe Jr. who was born in August 20, 1939, governed under the 1935 Constitution, which constitution considers as citizens of the Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines was in fact a natural-born citizen of the Philippines regardless of whether or not he is legitimate or illegitimate.

b.) In the abscence of contrary proof, what is presumed the residence of one who died priot to his death?

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person at the time of his death was also his residence before death.

c.) Does an illegitimate child under the 1935 Constitution follow the citizenship of his father or mother?

Subsection (3), Article III, of the 1935 Constitution, those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines are Filipino citizens. The provision does not makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate.

Subsection (4), Article III, of the 1935 Constitution, taken together with existing civil law provisions at the time, which provided that women would automatically lose their Filipino citizenship and acquire that of their foreign husbands, resulted in discriminatory situations that effectively incapacitated the women from transmitting their Filipino citizenship to their legitimate children and required illegitimate children of Filipino mothers to still elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

d.) Does the 1935 Constitution require that the child has to be legitimate in order to follow the citizenship of his father?

No. The 1935 Constitution adopted jus sanguinis or blood relationship as being the basis of Filipino Citizenship. The provision makes no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children of Filipino fathers. It is enough that filiation is extablished or that the child is acknowledged or recognized by the father.

2. MO YA LIM YAO VS COMMISSION OF IMMIGRATION , 41 SCRA 292

a.) What is the effect of marriage of alien woman to a Filipino? (before 1987 Constitution)

Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege.

This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country, both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it every time she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise a right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to native-born Filipinos. Every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand.

3. IN RE: MALLARE 59 SCRA (P.40 BARQ) RELATE TO TECSON

a.) Will an illegitimate child of an alien father and Filipino mother under 1935 Constitution need to elect citizenship to be considered a natural born?

Yes. Subsection (4), Article III, of the 1935 Constitution, taken together with existing civil law provisions at the time, which provided that women would automatically lose their Filipino citizenship and acquire that of their foreign husbands, resulted in discriminatory situations that effectively incapacitated the women from transmitting their Filipino citizenship to their legitimate children and required illegitimate children of Filipino mothers to still elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien, she lost her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Under the 1973 Constitution, however, children

born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. Therefore, the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935 Constitution. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. So, if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

4. AZNAR VS. COMELEC AND OSMENA, 185 SCRA 1990

a.) What is the status of one who is a holder of alien certificate of registration while at the same time having a valid Philippine Passport?

In the decided case of Aznar vs Comelec and Osmena, the Supreme Court ruled that he who is a holder an alien certificate of registration and of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and has continuously participated in the electoral process in the country since 1963 up to the a Filipino and the loss of his Philippine citizenship cannot be presumed.

b.) Is he considered a Filipino?

Yes. The respondent did not lose his Filipino Citizenship and thereby qualified as a candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu Province. The petitioner failed to present direct proof that private respondent had lost his Filipino Citizenship by any of the modes provided under C.A. No. 63 namely: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country; (2) By express renunciation of Citizenship; and (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. Thus, it is clear that private respondent Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned herein above or by any other mode of losing Philippine Citizenship.

In concluding that private respondent had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States of America, the petitioner merely relied on the fact that private respondent was issued alien certificate of registration and was given clearance and permit to re-enter the Philippines by the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. Petitioner assumed that because of the foregoing, the respondent is an American and "being an American", private respondent "must have taken and sworn to the Oath of Allegiance required by the U.S. Naturalization Laws."

Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and who are not. Whether or not a person is considered an American under the laws of the United States does not concern Us here.

By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a Filipino remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his Philippine citizenship. As earlier stated, however, the petitioner failed to positively establish this fact.

Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. In the case of Osmeña, the Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenships. Indeed, there is no express renunciation here of Philippine citizenship; truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said citizenship. When We consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be "express", it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine 'citizenship when there is no renunciation either "'express" or "implied".

5. BENGZON VS CRUZ (G.R. No. 14280, May 7, 2001)

6. FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC (174 SCRA 245 and 257 SCRA 727)

a.) What is the effect of repatriation?

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. They shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines.

b.) Is a former natural born cirizen who is reptriated considered natural born considering that he has to perforn an act to perfect his re-acquired citizenship?

If he is a natural-born citizen before he lost his citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

c.) When should the repatriation be reckoned?

Mere filing of certificate of candidacy is not a sufficient act of repatriation. Repatriation requires an express and equivocal act

It shall take effect upon the applicant taking the oath of allegiance as Philippine citizen and the issuance to him of the corresponding certificate of naturalization by the Special Committee. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall thereupon cancel his certificates of registration as alien and issue to him the corresponding identification certificate as citizen.

7. CO VS HRET (G.R. No. 92191 , July 30, 1991)

a.) What is the effect of naturalization to the minor children? Under CA 473, the effects of naturalization to minor children are as follows:

Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof.

A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the parent, shall automatically become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age.

A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization of his parent, shall be considered a Philippine citizen, unless within one year after reaching the age of majority, he fails to register himself as a Philippine citizen at the American Consulate of the country where he resides, and to take the necessary oath of allegiance.

b.) Is the child considered natural born for purposes of running for election? Yes. No person shall be elected as president ,provincial, city or district

representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

8. TABASA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

a.) Who are qualified to avail of repatriation under RA 8171? RA 8171, "An Act Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Women Who

Have Lost Their Philippine Citizenship by Marriage to Aliens and of Natural-Born Filipinos," was enacted on October 23, 1995. It provides for the repatriation of only two (2) classes of persons, viz:

Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on account of political or economic necessity, may reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation in the manner provided in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended: Provided, That the applicant is not a:

(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.

b.) What is the effect of the filing of one’s certificate of candidacy on his alien citizenship?

Those with dual citizenship--The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Sec. 40 (d) and RA 7854, Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance.” Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. 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. (Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630)

9. JACOT VS. DAL AND COMELEC (G.R. N.o. 179848, Novembern27, 2008)

a.) Are dual citizens after the Dual Citizenship Act qualified to run for public office?

Yes. Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under the law shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities provided that those seeking elective office meet the qualifications as required by the Philippine Constitution and existing laws, and at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer authorized to administer an oath.Those appointed to a public office shall make a sworn renunciation of the oath of allegiance to the country where they took their oath.

b.) Is there a difference in the manner of renunciation of alien citizenship before one is qualified to run as compared to the Manzano Case? Is the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy an effective renunciation?

Yes. There is a difference because there is a need to take oath of allegiance and to execute a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.

In the decided case of Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court held that for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice that once a candidate files his candidacy, he is deemed to have renounced his foreign citizenship.