199 SCRA 692 / G.R. Nos.

92191-92
Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representative
ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE
ONG, JR., respondents.
En Banc
Doctrine: citizenship
Date: July 30, 1991
Ponente: Justice Gutierrez Jr.
Facts:
The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a decision of the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural
born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes. On May 11, 1987, the
congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held. Among the candidates who
vied for the position of representative in the second legislative district of Northern Samar are the
petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent Ong
was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. The petitioners
filed election protests against the private respondent premised on the following grounds:
1)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and
2)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.
The HRET in its decision dated November 6, 1989, found for the private respondent. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on November 12, 1989. This was, however, denied by the
HRET in its resolution dated February 22, 1989. Hence, these petitions for certiorari.

Issue:
WON Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born citizen of the Philippines.

Held: Yes. Petitions are dismissed.

Ratio:
The records show that in the year 1895, Ong Te (Jose Ong's grandfather), arrived in the Philippines from
China. Ong Te established his residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar on land which he bought
from the fruits of hard work. As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was able to obtain a certificate of residence
from the then Spanish colonial administration. The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was
born in China in 1905. He was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915. Jose Ong Chuan spent his
childhood in the province of Samar. As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the rural and seaside community of
Laoang, he absorbed Filipino cultural values and practices. He was baptized into Christianity. As the years
passed, Jose Ong Chuan met a natural born-Filipino, Agripina Lao. The two fell in love and, thereafter, got
married in 1932 according to Catholic faith and practice. The couple bore eight children, one of whom is
the Jose Ong who was born in 1948. Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated from this country. He decided to
put up a hardware store and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in Samar. The business
prospered. Expansion became inevitable. As a result, a branch was set-up in Binondo, Manila. In the
meantime, Jose Ong Chuan, unsure of his legal status and in an unequivocal affirmation of where he cast
his life and family, filed with the Court of First Instance of Samar an application for naturalization on
February 15, 1954.

On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar, after trial, declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen. On May 15,
1957, the Court of First Instance of Samar issued an order declaring the decision of April 28, 1955 as final
and executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already take his Oath of Allegiance. Pursuant to said order,
Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly, a certificate of naturalization was issued to
him. During this time, Jose Ong (private respondent) was 9 years old, finishing his elementary education
in the province of Samar. There is nothing in the records to differentiate him from other Filipinos insofar
as the customs and practices of the local populace were concerned. After completing his elementary
education, the private respondent, in search for better education, went to Manila in order to acquire his
secondary and college education. Jose Ong graduated from college, and thereafter took and passed the
CPA Board Examinations. Since employment opportunities were better in Manila, the respondent looked
for work here. He found a job in the Central Bank of the Philippines as an examiner. Later, however, he
worked in the hardware business of his family in Manila.

In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was elected as a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. His
status as a natural born citizen was challenged. Parenthetically, the Convention which in drafting the
Constitution removed the unequal treatment given to derived citizenship on the basis of the mother's
citizenship formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong, respondent's full brother, as a natural born Filipino.
The Constitutional Convention had to be aware of the meaning of natural born citizenship since it was
precisely amending the article on this subject.
The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in Article IV read:

SECTION 1, the following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 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 with law.
SECTION 2, Natural-born Citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3 above as applying not only to those who elect Philippine
citizenship after February 2, 1987 but also to those who, having been born of Filipino mothers, elected
citizenship before that date. The provision in question was enacted to correct the anomalous situation
where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother was automatically granted the status of a
natural-born citizen while one born of a Filipino mother and an alien father would still have to elect
Philippine citizenship. If one so elected, he was not, under earlier laws, conferred the status of a natural-
born
Election becomes material because Section 2 of Article IV of the Constitution accords natural born status
to children born of Filipino mothers before January 17, 1973, if they elect citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority. To expect the respondent to have formally or in writing elected citizenship when he
came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessary. He was already a citizen. Not only was his
mother a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized when the respondent was only nine (9)
years old. He could not have divined when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 the Constitution would
be amended to require him to have filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing citizenship inspite of his
already having been a citizen since 1957.
In 1969, election through a sworn statement would have been an unusual and unnecessary procedure
for one who had been a citizen since he was nine years old
In Re: Florencio Mallare: the Court held that the exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship
The private respondent did more than merely exercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life
here in the Philippines.
Petitioners alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was not validly a naturalized citizen because of his premature
taking of the oath of citizenship.
SC: The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping respondents father of his citizenship
after his death. An attack on a persons citizenship may only be done through a direct action for its
nullity, therefore, to ask the Court to declare the grant of Philippine citizenship to respondents father as
null and void would run against the principle of due process because he has already been laid to rest

G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000, 337 SCRA 543

Valles vs. COMELEC

G.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000
Principle of jus sanguinis
How Philippine citizenship is acquired
Effect of filing certificate of candidacy: express renunciation of other citizenship
FACTS:
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In
1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines, where she later married a
Filipino and has since then participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In
the May1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a petition for her disqualification as candidate on the
ground that she is anAustralian.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino
HELD:
The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. There under, a child follows the
nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus
soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what
served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic acts by which the United States governed
the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also
known as the Jones Law.

Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899
and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine citizens. Private
respondents father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on Jan. 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte.... Thus, under the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the
same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein private respondent
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.

The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis
for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, xxx

So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship, was subsequently
retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a
Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to
her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent
can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship.

316 SCRA 1 / BAR no. 194

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR. VICENTE
D CHING, digested
Bar Matter. No. 914, October 1, 1999 (Constitutional Law Citizenship)

FACTS:
Petitioner, who resided in the Philippines since his birth during the 1935 Constitution, is a legitimate son
of a Filipina married to a Chinese citizen. Subsequently, petitioner elected Philippine citizenship 14 years
after he reached the age of majority. OSG recommends the relaxation of the standing rule on the
construction of the phrase reasonable period and the allowance of the petitioner to elect Philippine
citizenship due to circumstances like petitioner having lived in the Philippines all his life and his
consistent belief that he is a Filipino.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a legitimate child under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father
validly elect Philippine citizenship 14 years after he has reached the age of majority.
HELD:
No, despite the special circumstances, Petitioner failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of
14 years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his intention
to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement upon
reaching the age of majority. In addition, there was no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine
citizenship.

GR No. 87193 Case Digest and Notes (Political Law - Citizenship)

Juan Frivaldo vs COE and the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter, President Salvador Estuye
GR No. 87193 June 23, 1989

Facts:
On January 22, 1988, petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of
Sorsogon. On October 27, 1988, Salvador Estuye, who was suing in his personal capacity, filed with
Commission on Elections a petition for annulment of Frivaldos election and proclamation on the ground
that he was not a Filipino citizen.

Issue:
Whether Juan G. Frivaldo was a Filipino citizen at the time of his election on January 18, 1988?

Additional Facts/Notes:
1. Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution that all public officials and employees owe the state an
allegiance at all time
2. Section 42 of the Local Government Code that a candidate for local elective office must be a citizen
of the Philippines and a qualified voter of the constituency where he is running
a. Certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19, 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status
b. Evidence, a certification from US District court, District of California, authenticated by Vice Consul
Amado P. Cortez of Philippine Consulate General in California, USA.
3. If Frivaldo really wanted to disavow his American citizenship and reacquire Philippine citizenship,
the petitioner should have done so in accordance with the laws of our country. Under CA No. 63 as
amended by CA No. 473 and PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.

Defense:
Frivaldo insisted that he was a citizen of the Philippines because his naturalization as an American citizen
was not impressed with voluntariness. He cited Nottebohm case, a German nationals naturalization in
Liechtenstein was not recognized because it had been obtained for reasons of convenience only. A1) His
oath in his certificate of candidacy that he was a natural born citizen should be a sufficient act of
repatriation. A2) He actively participates in 1987 congressional elections had divested him of American
citizenship under the laws of the United States, thus, restoring his Philippine citizenship.

VS

The court: Nottebohm case cited by the petitioner invoked the International Law, principle of effective
nationality which is clearly not applicable to the case at bar. Why not relevant? Said case is not relevant
to the petitioner before us because it dealt with a conflict between the nationality laws of two states as
decided by a third state.

Article 5 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on the conflict of nationality law: Within a thirst state a
person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one.

Held:
The petition is dismissed and petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo is hereby not a citizen of the Philippines and
therefore disqualified from serving as Governor of the province of Sorsogon. Accordingly, he is ordered
to vacate his office and surrender the same to the duly elected vice-governor of the said province once
this decision becomes final and executor. The temporary restraining order dated March 9, 1980, is lifted.