Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
14917,
November 23, 2007).
REVIEW:
JZE: And so he is a citizen of State X and also ALL CONCERNED STATES FOLLOW THE
a citizen of State Y based on jus solis and jus NATIONALITY THEORY:
sanguinis. What if matters relating to his Rigby's parents are citizens Acosta Rica but
status and even successional rights are he was born in Ruyerussia. Assume the
governed, in either or both of the countries, Acosta Rica treats children born of Acosta
by the national law but they offer different Rican, parents also as Acosta Ricans while
treatment. One State for example would Ruyerussia treats all children born within its
allow legitimes, the other one you are free to territory as Ruyerussians.
dispose. Or another country might even
provide that everything will go back to the Assume further that both Acosta Rica and R
State by the principle of ESCHEAT. Or it could SIA follow the nationality rule when it comes
be that there are certain cultures where it to succession, that, similar to the Philippines,
would follow the antiquated practice of the rule in both countries is that successional
primogeniture. Can you recall what that is? rights shall be regulated by the national law
It refers to a tradition where the eldest child of the person whose succession is under
will inherit. But that is not allowed in the PH. consideration.
In all other cases where the different Acosta Rica provides for a system of
State laws are pleaded or invoked legitimes while Ruyerussia does not. If we
before the forum court follow Ruyerussian law on succession, there
is no such thing as preterition as the testator
JZE: For example I have a problem with my was free to dispose of his estate by will as he
candidacy for public office. Remember that wished Assume also that Rigby died in the
under the LGC you can only apply for certain Philippines with a will that left everything to
positions or run for certain positions if you
his friend Mordecai, leaving nothing to his JZE: This was just discussed in passing by PE
children. BENITO because:
This is a 1930 Convention that was
JZE: So nay differing na possible promulgated by the old League of
interpretation relating to the intrinsic Nations. Sometime in 1945, the
validity of the will. In State A pwede ang League of Nations(LN) was
preterition. He can dispose of the properties disbanded. Members of the allied
however he wishes. But in State B, its not forces during WWII went on to form
allowed. Although both States clearly refer what we now know today as UN.
to the national law. What is his effective The PH was not a signatory to the
national law if: League of Nations. Its not one of the
The will is probated in the Philippines State Parties.
Mordecai proved that Rigby was a
citizen of Ruyerussia and pleaded BUT internationally, it has been accepted
and proved Ruyerussian succession that the UN is not a direct replacement of
law the LN, continuation lang na siya sa
personality sa LN. All of the States who
JZE: So we do not have to worry about ratified this Hague Convention, wala pa nila
processual presumption. gi withdraw ilang support. And the members
of the LN are now members of UN.
Rigbys children also proved that
Rigby was a citizen of Acosta Rica and In my opinion, the Hague Convention has
pleaded and proved Acosta Rican already attained the status of JUS COGENS
law. because there is a widespread practice of the
Hague Convention among nations. Now if it
ISSUE: What is the proper law to be applied is considered as JUS COGENS it becomes a
by the PH court? generally accepted principle of international
law which by virtue of the Constitution, we
WHAT WE DO KNOW: are sworn to uphold.
For sure, we know that we will not
apply Philippine law on succession Within a third State, a person having more
because Rigby was not a Filipino than one nationality shall be treated as if he
citizen had only one. Without prejudice to the
Based on the facts of the application of its law in matters of personal
hypothetical cases processual status and of any conventions in force, a
presumption cannot be applied third State shall, of the nationalities which
because the laws of both foreign any such person possesses, recognize
states were properly pleaded and exclusively in its territory either:
proed.
The nationality of the country in
WHAT WILL WE APPLY? which he is habitually and principally
HAGUE CONVENTION ON CERTAIN resident, or
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE CONFLICT OF
NATIONALITY LAWS.
the nationality of the country with people succeeding to the estate of a person.
which in the circumstances he They are the parties but whose succession
appears to be in fact most closely are we talking about by which we apply the
connected. (State of the most national law? The person whose succession
significant relationship rule or the who is under consideration.
proximity theory)
APPROCAHES:
JZE: This is what we call the SELECTION OF The forum court (third state) shall
EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY. Mupili gyud ang apply
forum state ug isa aka nationality. In legal o THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
questions specifically with respect to status HABITUAL RESIDENCE (The
and similar matters, the forum state has to nationality of the country in
choose one, it cannot choose to recognize which he is habitually and
both. principal resident), or
o THE LAW OF THE STATE OF
SUMMARY: THE MOST SIGNIFICANT
Under Article 5, a conflict case arises before RELATIONSHIP (The
the court of a third State. This means that nationality of the country
the party who has multiple nationalities is with which in the
NOT A CITIZEN of the forum State. circumstances appears to be
in fact the most closely
JZE: Because if you are also a citizen of the connected) or;
forum state such will treat you as its own. o THE THIRD STATES OWN
NATIONAL LAW ON
This also means that the States of the party's PERSONAL STATUS, OR
nationalities do not both follow, LEX FORI. o THE LAW MANDATED BY
TREATY
JZE: A is a citizen of State X and State Y dual
nationality. Both State X and Y follow LEX JZE: You have to remember approaches rani.
FORI, meaning all questions shall be dealt The court is free to choose.
with by the law on the forum court. Lets say
the forum is in the PH what will you apply? Take note that:
PH law, which is the law of the forum. Article 5 is without prejudice to the
application of the forum's national law on
In such litigation, the end result would be the personal status or of any conventions in
recognition of only one of the multiple force.
nationalities as the citizenship of the party of
Thus, if the public policy of the forum
person concerned. This is the process known
mandates the protection of its own nationals
as the selection of EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY.
on incidental questions, it may choose to
apply its own laws.
JZE: Im saying person concerned because
we are not necessarily talking about the JZE: You need to remember that LEX FORI
party litigant. In the case for example of may be applied regardless of mandates
made outside the forum if there are public
policy considerations are involved. Ex: What possible public interests are we talking
protection for labor ang public policy about. Diba naay ban on foreigners on
consideration, then the forum court is acquiring lands in the PH? What else? We
allowed to apply that and rejecting whatever have a public policy that we should give
choice the parties have entered into. rights to illegitimate children.
(7) In the case of a woman, upon her BOI: No, dapat mo ideport kay by your
marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the staying for an extended period of time sa
laws in force in her husband's country, she China you are deemed to have expressly
acquires his nationality. (n/a) renounced you PH citizen.
First paragraph talks about the acquisition. (1) Those intending to exercise their
The second par. is the one that talks about right of suffrage must Meet the
retention. requirements under Section 1, Article
V of the Constitution, Republic Act
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The No. 9189, otherwise known as "The
unmarried child, whether legitimate, Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) 2003" and other existing laws;
years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this (2) Those seeking elective public in
Act shall be deemed citizenship of the the Philippines shall meet the
Philippines. qualification for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution
JZE: The most that could happen under and existing laws and, at the time of
derivative citizenship is dual citizenship. It the filing of the certificate of
doesnt lead to a loss of the formers candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public enough na nahimo kang PH citizen. You have
officer authorized to administer an to make a personal and sworn renunciation
oath; of any and all foreign citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer an
(3) Those appointed to any public oath.
office shall subscribe and swear to an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of CONDON vs COMELEC
the Philippines and its duly G.R. No. 198742, August 10, 2012
constituted authorities prior to their
assumption of office: Provided, That Maja was the winning vice-mayoralty
they renounce their oath of candidate of Caba, La Union. A petition for
allegiance to the country where they quo warranto was filed against her on the
took that oath; ground that she is a dual citizen who, under
RA 9225, must execute a sworn renunciation
(4) Those intending to practice their of her Australian citizenship.
profession in the Philippines shall
apply with the proper authority for a Maja answered that, when she executed a
license or permit to engage in such declaration of renunciation of Australian
practice; and citizenship in Australia, she is deemed to
have lost her foreign citizenship. She wanted
(5) That right to vote or be elected or the court to take judicial notice of the laws
appointed to any public office in the of Australia regarding loss of citizenship. She
Philippines cannot be exercised by, also contended that the mere act of running
or extended to, those who: for public office is a clear abandonment of
her foreign citizenship, citing Valles versus
(a) are candidates for or are COMELEC.
occupying any public office in
the country of which they are HELD: Foreign laws are not a matter of
naturalized citizens; and/or judicial notice. Like any other fact, they must
be alleged and proven. To prove a foreign
(b) are in active service as law, the parry invoking it must present a
commissioned or non- copy thereof and comply with Sections 24
commissioned officers in the and 25 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of
armed forces of the country Court.
which they are naturalized
citizens. More importantly the petitioner has validly
re-acquired her Filipino citizenship when she
took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
JZE: Para lang mahimo kang PH citizen, all the Philippines on December 5, 2005. At that
you need to do is to take an oath. The point, she held dual citizenship, i.e.,
moment you take the oath of allegiance, you Australian and Philippine.
are automatically a Filipino. If you intend to
run for public office which requires as a
qualification, natural born citizenship dili
JZE: But the SC said that was not enough they renounce their oath of allegiance to
because you are running for elective office. the country where they took that oath;
The SC examined jurisprudence:
(4) Those intending to practice their
In Lopez v. COMELEC, we declared that a profession in the Philippines shall apply with
dual citizen cannot run for any elective the proper authority for a license or permit
public position in the Philippines unless he or to engage in such practice;
she personally swears to a renunciation of all
foreign citizenship at the time of filing the JZE: Perfect example there would be
candidacy. To be valid, the renunciation practicing law in the PH. Remember the
must be contained in an affidavit duly practice of law is reserved only to citizens of
executed before an officer of the law who is the PH. If you are not a PH citizen, you
authorized to administer an oath staling in cannot practice law. Although, that can
clear and unequivocal terms that affiant is change by way of constitutional amendment
renouncing all foreign citizenship. that would allow foreigners. Ex.: ASEAN,
reciprocity
Section 5(2) of Republic Act No 9225
compels natural born Filipinos, who have JZE: What if you are a PH citizen, you passed
been naturalized as citizens of a foreign the bar but by reason of circumstance, you
country, but who reacquired or retained had to be naturalized in a foreign country.
their Philippine citizenship Then, after the circumstances have changed,
you go back to the PH and you applied for PH
(1) to take the oath of allegiance under citizenship by repatriation (RA 9225). Can
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, you now practice law in the PH?
REACQUISITION RETENTION
JZE: So pwede gihapon ka magpractice ug Applies to those Applies to those
law diri but there is a requirement na who are naturalized who are naturalized
mananghid sa ka sa SC. in a foreign country in a foreign country
before the after the effectivity
effectivity of RA of RA 9225
IN RE: DACANAY 9225
G.R. No. 1678, December 17, 2007 Reacquire PH Retain PH
citizenship upon citizenship upon
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to taking the oath taking oath
practice the legal profession in the Not considered Considered as if
Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino Filipinos during the they never lost their
citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) period of PH citizenship.
shall apply with the proper authority for a naturalization
license or permit to engage in such practice."
Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who
reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA ART. IV SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of
9225 can resume his law practice, he must citizens is inimical to the national interest
first secure from this Court the authority to and shall be dealt with by law.
do so.
JZE: Read in detail katong story ni BLAS OPLE
DACANAY, BENJAMIN M.; Manila; March 03, in your book.
1960; Roll No. 14503
DUAL CITIZENSHIP DUAL ALLEGIANCE
The state of having The state of
JZE: This is a lawyer from Manila and there two or more proclaiming
is only one Benjamin Dacanay in the roll of citizenships allegiance or loyalty
attorneys. Has the SC forgotten that way to two or more
back in 1992 in an en banc case (ADEZ sovereign states
REALTY VS CA OCT. 30 1992), it disbarred A citizen has 2 or A naturalized
Atty. Benjamin Dacanay effective more citizenships citizen continues to
immediately by intercalating a material fact by operation of law maintain his
in a pleading before a SC. RA 9225 or by allegiance to his
accident (jus soli mother country
There is a difference between retention and and jus sangguinis)
reacquisition. READ THE CASE: DAVID VS Not considered Declared inimical to
AGBAY March 2015. The SC said here that inimical to national the national
you are not considered a PH citizen during interest and by interest and is
implication of RA
9225, deemed abhorred by
sanctioned by State national policy Popular vote does not cure the ineligibility of
policy candidate.
Article 16. If the law of the State, whose The rule is that coaches should be Filipino
nationality an illegitimate child possesses, citizens.
recognises that such nationality may be lost
as a consequence of a change in the civil
But why is it that we have foreign coaches in
status of the child (legitimation,
recognition), such loss shall be conditional the PBA?
on the acquisition by the child of the
nationality of another State under the law of READ: GENERAL MILLING CORP vs RUBEN
such State relating to the effect upon TORRES (April 22, 1991)
nationality of changes in civil status.
Basketball Coaches Associatio of the
JZE: I do not understand this but just read Philippin ("BCAP") appealed the issuance of
this. said alien employment permit to the
respondent Secretary of Labor who, on 23
CHAPTER V April 1990, issued a decision ordering
ADOPTION cancellation of petitioner Cone's
Article 17. If the law of a State recognises employment permit on the ground that
that its nationality may be lost as the result there was no showing that there is no person
of adoption, this loss shall be conditional in the Philippines who is competent, able
upon the acquisition by the person adopted and willing to perform the services required
of the nationality of the person by whom he nor that the hiring of petitioner Cone would
is adopted, under the law of the State of redound to the national interest.
which the latter is a national relating to the
effect of adoption upon nationality. HELD: The Secretary of Labor is correct. The
SC did not overturn the Secretarys factual
determinations.
Filipino-foreigners have the same But based on GMC vs. TORRES, foreigners
requirements as locals except they must cannot otherwise coach in the Philippines.
have documents from the Department of
Justice and the Bureau of Immigration Clarkson is a dual Philippine and American
proving their Filipino citizenship. citizen, the former by virtue of ancestral
descent. His father Mike Clarkson is African-
American, while his mother Annette Davis is
of half Filipino descent and was born in.
Pampanga.
FIBA RULES