Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 25

Conflicts of Law Outline Reviewer Sources

Direct:
Constitutions
Conflicts of Laws - That part of municipal law of a State Codifications
which directs its courts and administrative agencies, when Special Laws
confronted with a legal problem involving a foreign International
element, whether or not they should apply a foreign law/s Treatises and International Conventions
(Paras). Judicial Decisions
International Customs
(4) Elements
1. Conflict of laws is part of the municipal law of a Indirect:
state; Natural Moral Law
2. There is a directive to courts and admin Work of Writers
agencies;
3. There is a legal problem involving foreign Kilberg Doctrine
element;
4. There is either an application or a non- It is a rule to the effect that the forum is not bound by the
application of a foreign law or foreign laws. law of the place of injury or death as to the limitations on
damages for wrongful act because such rule is procedural
Distinctions between Conflicts of Law and Public and hence the law of the forum governs on this issue.
International Law (Northwest Airlines vs. CA)

Bases COL PIL Center of Gravity Doctrine
As to nature Municipal in International in
character character Choice of law problems in conflicts of law are resolved by
Persons Private Individuals Sovereign states; the application of the law of the jurisdiction which has the
involved and other entities most significant relationship to or contact with the event
possessed of an and parties to litigation and issue therein.
international
personality such as Forum Non Conveniens
the UN org
Transactions Private Generally affected A forum may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even
involved transactions by public interest; when jurisdiction is authorized by law on the ground that
between those in general the forum is inconvenient or the ends of justice would be
private are of interest only best served by trial in another forum or the controversy
individuals to sovereign may be more suitably tried elsewhere tried elsewhere.
States
Remedies Resort to -Peaceful It may be manifested in the following ways:
and municipal (diplomatic 1. The evidence and the witness may not be readily
Sanctions tribunals negotiations, tender available;
& exercise of good 2. The court dockets of the forum may already be
office, mediation, clogged to permit additional cases would
conciliation) inevitably hamper the speedy administration of
-Judicial justice;
arbitration/settleme 3. Evils of forum shopping;
nt 4. Forum has no particular interest in the case;
-Forcible 5. The case may be better tried in other courts.
(severance of
diplomatic relations, The doctrine should generally apply only if the defendant
retorsions, is a corporation
embargo, pacific
blockade, war Elements:
a. The forum State is one to which the parties

1

may conveniently resort to; Manila. The wife Magdalena C Bohonan and her two
b. It is in a position to make an intelligent children questioned the validity of the testamentary
decision as to the law and the facts; and provisions, claiming that they have been deprived of the
c. It has or is likely to have power to enforce its legitime that the laws of the Philippines, concede them.
decision. The children were only given legacies of P6,000 each,
while the wife received nothing.
Jurisdiction
Issues:
In international law, it is often defined as the right of a Is the wife entitled to any share in the estate?
State to exercise authority over persons and things within Is the failure of the testator to give his children what they
its boundaries, subject to certain exceptions. are entitled to under Philippine laws valid?
Is it necessary to reintroduce the proved Nevada Law?
Jurisdiction over the Person
Held:
1. Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is No. The laws of Nevada of which the deceased was a
acquired from the moment he invokes the aid of the citizen, allow him to dispose of all of his properties without
court and voluntarily submits himself by institution requiring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife.
of the suit through proper pleadings Since no right to share in the inheritance in favor of a
divorced wife exists to share in the inheritance in favor of
2. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is a divorced wife exists in the state of Nevada and since
acquired through: there was no conjugal property between the testator and
a. Voluntary appearance or Magdalena C Bohanan, the latter can have no legal claim
b. Personal or Substituted service of summons to any portion of the estate left by the testator.

Jurisdiction over the Property Yes. Art 10 para 2 of the CC (now par 2, Art 16 of NCC)
provides that legal and testamentary successions, in
• Results either from seizure of the property under a respect to the order of succession as well as to the extent
legal process or from the institution of legal of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their
proceedings wherein the court’s power over the provisions. Shall be regularized by the national law of the
property is recognized and made effective. person whose succession is in question, whatever may be
• This kind of jurisdiction of jurisdiction is referred to the nature of the property and regardless of the country
as in rem jurisdiction. Another form of jurisdiction is wherein said property may be found. Pursuant to this
quasi in rem which affects only the interests of article, the validity of testamentary dispositions are to be
particular persons in the thing. governed by the national law of the testator in this case,
• NOTE: Summons by publication is authorized in Nevada, which allows a testator to dispose of all his
three cases: property according to his will. The testamentary provisions
1. If the action is in rem; of the will, therefore are valid.
2. quasi in rem; and when
3. Involves the personal status of the plaintiff Fleumer vs. Hix
54 Phil 610
Philippine Trust Co. vs. Bohanan
GR L-12105, January 30, 1960 Facts: The petitioner is a special administrator of the
estate of Edward Hix. He alleged that the latter’s will was
Facts: The testator C.O. Bohanan was born in Nevada executed in Elkins, West Virginia on November 3, 1925 by
and therefore a citizen of that state, or at least a citizen of Hix who had his residence in that jurisdiction, and that the
California where some of his properties were located. laws of that state govern. To this end, the petitioner
Notwithstanding his long stay in the Philippines, he submitted a copy of Section 3868 of Acts 1882, c.84 as
continued to be a citizen of the US and of the state of his found in West Virginia Code, annotated by Hogg, Charles
particular choice, Nevada and remained to be a citizen of E., vol.2 1914, p. 1690 and as certified to by the Director
that state until his death. of National Library.
He declared in his will that the same was executed in The Judge of the First Instance however denied the
accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada. On April probate of the will on the grounds that Sec 300 and 301 of
24, 1950, the will which the testator executed in Manila on the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with.
April 23, 1944 was admitted to probate in the CFI of Hence, this appeal.

2

Nor was the extract from the law attested by proceedings leading to the probate or allowance the certificate of the officer having charge of the original. Fookien. 1934. Charles Fortich & and testament claimed to have been executed and signed Co. the French firm without examination anew the merits of Subsequently. In prove themselves in our courts. On May 14." 3 . under the seal of the State of West Virginia as provided in 2. There was no the probate and allowance of wills. the case. 1. leaving properties both in China and the Philippines and >Hilton vs. In the absence of proof that the municipal district Sec 301. Gustave Guyot. showing that the book from which an extract was taken Consequently. the will ans the alleged probate Philippine Islands are not authorized to take judicial notice thereof cannot be said to have been done in of the laws of the various states of the American Union. the authenticated transcript of was printed or published under the authority of the state of proceedings held in the municipal district court of West Virginia. who residents of New York and trading as co-partners in Paris survived him. The existence of such law in West Virginia must are the same as those provided for in our laws on be proved. China on No law has any effect. 1931 and filed. second marriage with Maria Natividad Billian. as provided in Sec 30 of the Code of Civil Amoy. The court held said will. China cannot be deemed and accepted as Procedure. the Amoy District Court a petition praying for the probate of the will executed in the Philippines on November 1929 Summary of ruling: or of the will executed in Amoy. The petition was remanded to the CFI of Bulacan the judgment conclusive and entered a decree in favor of after the Court overruled the decision on appeal. among the files and documents of his father a will in foremost of which that French courts gave no force and Chinese characters executed and signed by the deceased effect to the duly rendered judgments of US courts against on January 4. The Issue: extent to which one nation shall be allowed to operate 1.T. of a will. After the war. No evidence was introduced showing that the court of Amoy is a probate court and on Chinese extract from the laws of West Virginia was in force at the law of procedure in probate matters. 1938. the City of Amoy. residents. Hilton and Libbey on the French judgment in the US This petition was denied because of the loss of said will Circuit Court for the Southern Distrtict of New York and of insufficiency of the evidence to establish the loss of seeking an amount totaling over $195. were sued in petition in the CFI of Bulacan for the probate of the last will France for debts due to a French firm. sued in the Philippines on November 1929. The order of the Municipal District court of Amoy China does not purport to probate or allow the Held: Yes. The courts of the view thereof. it may be time alleged will was executed. & transients in our land. The laws of the foreign jurisdiction do not will which was the subject of the proceedings. What is the effect of the absence of proof to the Issue: Is it necessary to prove in this jurisdiction the existence of said law? existence of such law in West Virginia as a prerequisite to Held: the allowance and recording of said will. Silvino Suntay claiming he had found Defendants question this decree on many grounds. of its own force. presumed that the proceedings in the matter of The court therefore did not err in denying the probate of probating or allowing a will in the Chinese courts the will. Here the fundamental concepts and principles followed in requirements of the law were not met.000. of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. Stewart & Co. he died in citizens. the surviving widow filed a under the firm name of A. 1931. beyond the limits January 4. recorded and probated in French citizens. On Oct 15. liquidator of the French firm. 2. the testator is a Filipino Citizen and convenience & because we want to give protection to our a resident of the Philippines. the petition was dismissed on February 7. Guyot nine children by the first marriage and 1 child by the Facts: Defendants Henry Hilton and William Libbey. 1934. Has the existence of the said law been proved? within the dominion of another nation. Fookien Province. accordance with the accepted basic and Such laws must be proved as facts. the subject. Republic of China. depends upon the "comity of nations. In Re: Estate of Suntay Theories Why We Should Apply Foreign Laws 95 Phil 500 Facts: Theory of Comity – foreign law is applied because of its Facts: Jose B Suntay.

the subject matter of the action "The comity thus extended to other nations is no and the issues involved. there subsequently had a daughter. cause of action. it is as if the foreign law has become part & parcel of our local law. Theory of Harmony of Laws – we have to apply the foreign laws so that wherever a case is decided. It is the voluntary act of the being presented as a defense to the claim of the plaintiff. having due regard both to int'l duty and convenience. because we expect other ountries to respect matters. a. On the Merits Involve the same parties. by which all Conditions for Recognition of Foreign Judgment other principles of municipal law are ascertained and guided. Theory of Vested Rights – we seek to enforce not 4. thus. the legislative. hence. It must be a judgment on civil and commercial countries. 5. Foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or the good morals of the State. However. Philippines with the child. is the dispensing of justice. b. ours as well 3. Querubin vs. is neither a matter of absolute Nature of foreign judgment – It is imperative that it be obligation. nor of mere courtesy and good will. that courts of justice judgment entitles him. which is administered and ascertained in the same way. the court said that the Conflict of Laws. in addition to being individuals. When a plaintiff asks the court of have continually acted upon it. But it contributes so largely to promote justice between A foreign judgment is enforced when. Final. contrary to its policy. nation. subject is foreign. by applying similar rules. and. the solution should be 47 OG 316 approximately the same. The man later obtained a will be “harmony of laws” Californian divorce on account of his wife’s adultery with another man. and guided by the same reasoning. and. notice and the opportunity to be heard. or prejudicial to its interests. It is a proved in accordance with our prescribed rules on the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to matter.we apply foreign law not because it c. permission. Judgment must be final and executory to constitute res foreign law itself but the rights that have been vested judicata in another action. with respect to the parties. but the comity of the enforcement of a foreign judgment. The judgment must be valid according to the court that delivered it. we will not demean the laws and policies of other 2. identical or similar solutions Facts: A Filipino married an American lady with whom he anywhere & everywhere. and to produce a friendly intercourse between recognized. what is involved is the "It is not the comity of the courts." obtained by him in another state. including the innocent husband. under such foreign law. When the goal is realized. in which the defendant shall have be given reasonable · A respect of reciprocity between jurisdictions Respect . A year later. Rendered by a competent court. nation by which it is offered. if this can be child could not be brought out of California without judicial attained in many cases applying the proper foreign law. and A foreign judgment is recognized when it is given the to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are same effect that it has in the state where it was rendered under the protection of its laws." 1."Comity". the Filipino came back to the we must do so. an act done in another State may give rise to the existence of a right if the laws of that State ELEMENTS: The judgment must be: crated such right. require us to do so. and is inadmissible when what is involved is the recognition of a foreign judgment. Querubin irrespective of the forum. Where the foreign judgment is impeachment of sovereignty. but because our laws. the wife had married her former paramour and had been able to obtain Nature and Proof of Foreign Judgment an amendment for the divorce decree. To obtain enforcement of 4 . In the meantime. as a part of the voluntary one state to carry out and make effective a judgment law of nations. this time granting the custody of the child to her. executive or judicial acts of another nation. in the legal sense. Theory of Local Law. a party is given affirmative relief to which the the sovereignty to which they belong. that is. Foreign judgment was rendered by a judicial or a quasi- Notes: judicial tribunal which had competent jurisdiction over · Comity is a general principle of international law that US the parties and the case in the proper judicial proceedings Supreme Court has a long history of acknowledging. matter. The custody of the daughter was awarded to Theory of Justice – the purpose of all laws.

petitioner. Petitioner’s Factual situation . not to the mother (Old Civil Code).one was a male and the other was a authority except if the child is under 7. childhood. he consulted several doctors in the United States. Ex.She pecked the reed once. she brought a petition When God created man. who has always felt. hormone treatment and breast Real property as well as personal property is augmentation.assignment. though living abroad. whatever may be the nature of the favor of petitioner. His attempts to transform himself to a subject to the law of the country where it is “woman ” culminated on January 27.alleging that he is a male transsexual. Republic On August 18.2001 when he stipulated.2003. are binding upon citizens of the Philippines. Likewise.All of a father.” of the person whose succession is under On June 4.Out came two b.set of facts presenting a conflicts misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own problem. Capacity to succeed doing and should not be in any way taken against him.He created them male and female. the court believes that no harm. sex reassignment surgery? Art 15. sudden.petitioner lived as a female and successions. underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok.(The Legend of Malakas there be compelling reasons therefore (New Civil and Maganda) When is a man a man and when is a Code). equity. Feeling trapped in a man ’s body. Ex. thought and acted like a woman.” and his sex from “male ” to provisions. CC: psychological examination. God. shall be regulated by the national law “female. Silverio vs. He underwent Art 16. “anatomically male but feels. or to the Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first status. However. CC: Facts: On November 26. 2003.does the law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel. thinks and acts as a female ” and that he had always identified himself with girls since  All-sided rule –when foreign law will apply. Preference in parental authority is given to the said.the bamboo cracked and slit open. The guilty spouse generally loses parental human beings. even Branch 8. two important things and she heard voices coming from inside the bamboo.“Oh stand out: North Wind!North Wind!Please let us out!.” the voices a. stating that granting the petition would property and regardless of the country wherein be more in consonance with the principles of justice and said property may be found.drugs and counseling with regard to a person ’s sex? May a person Kinds of Conflict Rules successfully petition for a change of name and sex  One-sided rule – when Philippine internal law will appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a apply. He then sought to succession and to the amount of successional have his name in his birth certificate changed from rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary “Rommel Jacinto ” to “Mely. filed a petition for certiorari in 5 . the Republic of the Philippines (Republic). the trial court rendered a decision in consideration. 2002. Law of granting the petition.Amihan named the man “Malakas ”(Strong)and the should be no separation from the mother unless woman “Maganda ” (Beautiful). that with his sexual re.He made him in the likeness of for the will of habeas corpus in Ilocos Sur.this amendment in the Philippines. woman a woman? In particular. condition and legal capacity of persons name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila. petitioner Rommel Jacinto Laws relating to family rights and duties. intestate and testamentary Thailand. there female. On the contrary. that is. thru the OSG. (Genesis 5:1-2) Issue: May she be awarded with the custody of the child? Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala Held: No. under the Philippine law. injury or Point of contract – law of the country with which the prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in factual situation is most ultimately connected. both with respect to the order of was in fact engaged to be married. From then on. granting the petition the nation of the decedent would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her fiancé and the realization of their Status and Capacity dreams. now Composition of Conflict Rules possesses the physique of a female.then twice.

much and emotion. Respondent Cagandahan also alleged that she has no Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent breasts or menstrual development. he persons makes the gender classification at birth must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true inconclusive. gender of the human species. she suffered from clitoral hypertrophy and lifelong medication. Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of intersex as variations which should not be subject to of Court and RA outright denial. good reason thinks of his/her sex. is fixed. Consequently. (CAH)a condition where persons thus afflicted possess secondary male characteristics because of too much In the absence of a law on the matter. The new first name or nickname has been biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in habitually and continuously used by the petitioner his gender classification would be what the individual. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the reason of sex alteration. And accordingly. a ‘no-man’s land’ for those individuals who are neither truly ‘male’ nor truly Held: No. The Court is of the view that where the person is 2. Issue: Whether or not the change of petitioner ’s name In deciding this case. like taking her early years. Sexual development in cases of intersex compelling reason justifying such change. like and has been publicly known by that first name Cagandahan. Cagandahan is the one who 6 . be ridiculous tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce. The Court will not Thus.the Court of Appeals. HELD: Petition DENIED. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to negates such rigid classification. Republic vs. he is preponderant biological support for considering him as must present proper or reasonable cause or any being male. Hence. like Cagandahan. the Court considers the and sex in his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees to 413 of the Civil Code. with or nickname in the community. the Court will not secretion of male hormones (androgen). Cagandahan here 3. In have undergone treatment and taken steps. she Cagandahan’s development to reveal more fully his male was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia characteristics. the Court correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic. he Facts: Respondent Jennifer B. He chose not to do so. having reached the age of majority. she filed with the Regional Trial Court of Laguna a consider Cagandahan as having erred in not choosing to Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate such undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a that her gender or sex be changed from female to male female.”The current state of Philippine statutes name on the ground of sex reassignment. thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there Before a person can legally change his given name.She then alleged dictate on Cagandahan concerning a matter so innately that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences. to force his body into the categorical was found out that her ovarian structures had minimized. Or the change will avoid confusion. It is at maturity that the gender of such and official name. The treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of trial court granted the petition. this instant petition a female. a petition for change of first name or nickname may male or as a female. as society commonly currently knows this for review. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first ‘female’. Cagandahan and set aside the decision of the trial court. Cagandahan Respondent Cagandahan here has simply let nature take 565 SCRA 72 its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. mold of a female but he did not. Hence. On February 23. middle ground between the sexes. He could registered as a female in her Certificate of Live Birth. “It has been suggested that there is some 9048. this petition. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff. Cagandahan was has already ordered his life to that of a male. In addition.2006. Under the said apparently compels that a person be classified either as a law. less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. persons. she has become a male person. but this Court is not controlled by be allowed in any of the following cases: mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally 1.

to him should belong the primordial choice of what capacity of an individual are generally governed by the law courses of action to take along the path of his sexual of his nationality. Jus soli principle Jus sanguinis principle Kinds of Capacity Looks to the law of the Rule of descent or blood Capacity to act – (active) power to do acts with legal place of one's birth effects. 1987. Court held that Uy was a Filipino citizen by virtue of being Personal Law is the law that attaches to an individual born in the Philippines. he 7 . Fathers and mothers are Filipino citizens 2.in general. Born before January 17. Status is a matter or public or social interest. the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent Cagandahan’s position Situs Theory .has to live with his intersex anatomy. & capacity of a person should be will harm other members of society who are equally governed by the law of his domicile. obligations. effective 1.law of the place where property is situated. evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male rights.by virtue of which the status and Thus. Status being a concept of social order cannot Philippine Citizenship upon reaching age of majority easily be terminated at the mere will or desire of 4. This is principally adopted in the RP. NATURAL BORN CITI ZENS character: when a certain status is created by law -those who are citizens of a particular state w/o having to of one country. Citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the Characteristics of Status 1987 Constitution (ratification on Feb 2. of your birth your parents Followed in common law Followed in the Philippines countries JURIDICAL CAPACITY CAPACITY TO ACT *most of the cases involved are with regards elections fitness to be subject of legal Power to do acts with legal because elective public officials from the President down relations (PASSIVE) effects (ACTIVE) to Governor are required to be natural-born citizens Inherent in every natural acquired TALAROC V. Naturalized according to law the parties concerned. entitled to protection under the law. The Court cannot but respect how respondent Cagandahan deals with his unordinary state Citizens of the Philippines and thus help make his life easier. and the adoption of the Jus wherever he may go. and (2) how an individual deals Nationality and Citizenship with what nature has handed out. Status is generally supposed to have a universal 1. it is GENERALLY judicially perform any act to acquire or perfect citizenship recognized all over the world. Status is conferred principally by the state not by Feb 11?) the individual. *note: #s 1-3 are considered NATURAL-BORN Citizens 4. racial and Court respects Cagandahan’s congenital condition and his cultural group. the status. Nationality Theory . In so ruling the Court do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature. considering the unique IN RP: 1987 CONSTI: ARTICLE 4: WHO ARE FILIPINO circumstances in this case CITIZENS? 1. and his personal judgment of being a male. His nationality was contested for election purposes. Sanguinis principle did not effect the exclusion of those who were already considered citizens. the general rule is that real property is governed by the law of the State where it is situated. the Nationality – membership in an ethnic. mature decision to be a male. Juridical capacity – (passive) fitness to be the subject of You're a citizen of the place Your citizenship depends on legal relations. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an “incompetent “and in the absence of Domiciliary Theory . Life is already difficult for Citizenship – membership in a political society. To him belongs the Theories of Personal Law human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. development and maturation. UY: JUS SOLI APPLIED BEFORE person 1935 CONSTI Lost only through death May be lost -Uy was born of Chinese father but of Filipino mother in RP. In other words. condition. Besides. 2. 3. the ordinary person. social. 1973 + Filipino mothers + elect 3.

RESIDENCE: resided in RP + Continuously + not less -higher standard of morality than good moral character than 10 years prior to application -moral character of the highest degree. 7 SCRA 832: only Filipino citizens can be -confers to an alien a nationality public school teachers) after birth 5.g.) Proper and Irreproachable conduct 2.e. his father being Chinese. then he 4. Republic) Believes in the principles underlying the Philippine -EVIDENCE: testimony of 2 character witnesses Consitution >well known in the community and enjoy such a high Must have conducted himself in a proper and reputation for probity (honesty/integrity). HRET: CHILDREN OF FILIPINO MOTHERS (not less than 10 years) NEED NOT ELECT FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP IF …PRIOR TO HEARING of his PETITION for naturalization THEY HAD ALREADY ACQUIRED NATIONALITY as citizen WHEN FATHER NATURALIZED -Ong’s nationality contested. ECON: Own real estate + in RP + worth NOT LESS law THAN p5K >had opportunity to observe him personally + must have some lucrative trade/profession/lawful >can attest to the possession of the applicant of the occupation qualifications . REPUBLIC: PROOF OF GOVERNMENT\ LUCRATIVE TRADE 8 . COMELEC: CONSTITUTION DOES and spirit of our Consti NOT QUALIFY CHILDREN TO LEGITIMATE OR When reduced to 5 years: Applicant… (Section 3. Court held that the useful invention in RP Constitution does not qualify children to legitimate or 3. LANGUAGE: able to SPEAK & WRITE during the entire period of residence English/Spanish/any one of the principal Philippine -on consti requirement: not merely recitation BUT BELIEF! languages 6.but acquires citizenship of father which is Filipino not int'l school) for 2 years 2. CHILDREN & SCHOOL: enrolled minor children of *ON ECONOMIC REQUIREMENT school age >REAL ESTATE worth P5k (min) …in any PUBLIC or PRIVATE SCHOOL recognized by >lucrative trade.already exercised rights which are only attributable to And CIVICS are taught or prescribed as Filipino citizens. profession. CA ILLEGITIMATE 473) -FPJ alleged to have followed nationality of mom. lawful occupation the Bureau of Private Schools …where PHILIPPINE HISTORY YU KIAN CHIE VS. Good moral character law-abiding citizen (Dy Lam Go vs. their word may be irreproachable manner during the entire period of his taken on its face value residence in RP in his relations w/ the constituted >can't be employees of the petitioner government + community in which he is living >must have known applicant for the period prescribed by 4. Engaged as a teacher (public or private .o. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC NATURALIZATION SCHOOLS. Born in RP by any of the means provided by law (in RP: CA 473 as amended) *On CHARACTER -requires: QUALIFICATIONS FOR APPLICANTS OF +Good Moral character NATURALIZATION +conducted self in a PROPER + 1. he doesn’t have to elect Ratio: enable government to citizenship. Married to a Filipino woman illegitimate. CITIZENS BY NATURALIZATION (note however YEE V. part of the school curriculum …during the entire period of the residence required of him CO V. Established a new industry or introduced a was deemed an illegitimate child. not enough to be a 3. AGE: Not less than 21 on date of HEARING the petition IRREPROACHABLE manner (so could file while 20 y. honorably held office under Gov't he was allegedly born before parents were married. proper and irreproachable conduct 5. MORE DISCUSSION: Court held that since father was already naturalized before *On 10 yr-continuous residence requirement he attained age of majority. Since 1. he 2. *observe applicant's conduct *ensure that applicant has imbibed the principles TECSON V. as long as the child’s father is Filipino.

as long as it did not exceed 1. In his consistently with the demands of human dignity. a Filipino citizenship to be a transferee of a private land for Spanish subject. being the son of Lorenzo Pou. Fornier. The petition likewise prayed for a temporary restraining order. under Article VII. in relation to Rule 65. Section 4. a petition (SPA 04-003) before the Commission on cases of hereditary succession. Section 7 of 1987 Consti: "Save in 2004. the COMELEC dismissed SPA 3.. the event of sickness. both of responsible and law abiding citizenship challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and -should be complied with and proven asserting that. his mother. and his father. or on 26 January prohibition is to prevent the patrimony of our nation for 2004. would include GR 161434 and GR 161634. paragraph 7..g. 1. On 23 January 2004. that Allan residential purposes F. 2. and Pilipino (KNP) Party. according to Fornier.. FPJ. (FPJ). Granting. of the Philippines under the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang in accordance with the prevailing standard of living. stated his name to -regard w/ caution if family business be "Fernando Jr. he could not have . effective was an American. The future generations of Filipinos. since vendee already a motion was denied on 6 February 2004 by the COMELEC Filipino. no private lands shall be Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify FPJ and to deny due transferred or conveyed except to individuals qualified to course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the acquire or hold lands of the public domain" thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born GR: Aliens can't own lands Filipino citizen when in truth. a writ of *ON MINOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATION preliminary injunction or any other resolution that would REQUIREMENTS stay the finality and/or execution of the COMELEC Ratio: for the children to learn and imbibe customs and resolutions." or "Ronald Allan" Poe. his X: parents were foreigners. in the 2004 national elections. the latter being 1 ha (rural) an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration. The other petitions. Allan F. Fornier asseverated. he having only a small fixed income and the rest of -initial failure to comply with this requirement is a BAR TO the amounts he allegedly received were all depended on SUBSEQUENT PETITION even if during 2nd petition. Fornier assailed the decision of the COMELEC before the Supreme Court *ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS conformably with Rule 64. nakapag-aral na sa ibang school not under the law) (econ requirement continued) -not allowed if predominantly composed of children of a Lucrative trade. filed his certificate -his financial condition must be such as to permit him and of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic the members of his family to live with reasonable comfort. the profits made by the corporation. Bessie Kelley Poe. On 10 February 2004. to an alien) cannot file suit to void sale to an alien (who Poe. of the -not enough that applicant understands Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Intestate succession (Section 2. (GR 161824) initiated. of 9 . In pari delicto: vendor (who knew that he was selling (2) even if no such prior marriage had existed. Ronald Allan Kelly Poe. child no longer of school age (meaning. Real estate requirement Victorino X. Foreigner later naturalized as a Filipino: purpose of 04-003 for lack of merit. married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of cannot own land. end would not be frustrated en banc. Allan Poe. Fornier based the Why intestate: if otherwise. COMELEC provide for adequate support for himself and his family in Facts: On 31 December 2003. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of land Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and. BP 185. representing himself to be a stage of our civilization natural-born citizen of the Philippines. profession or lawful occupation specific race (e. at this certificate of candidacy. his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Poe was a Filipino citizen. later consolidated with GR traditions and ideals of Filipinos to prepare them for a life 161824. on 9 January -at odds with Article XII. Jr. Chiang Kai Shek mostly caters Chinese -substantial gainful employment or the obtaining of children) tangible receipts -appreciable margin of income over expenses in order to Tecson vs. was a 1982): allowed natural-born citizen who had lost his Spanish national.000 m2 (urban) transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ.-Chinese citizen applying for naturalization was held not -insufficient finances not an excuse for failing to comply qualified because he failed to sufficiently prove lucrative with this requirement trade. 3 days later. unemployment or disability to work also known as Fernando Poe. it would allow aliens to allegation of the illegitimate birth of FPJ on two assertions: circumvent the prohibition by paying money to a Philippine (1) Allan F. and must have known it) FPJ.

Kilosbayan Foundation vs. COMELEC. With the adoption of the Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision 1935 Constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong of the trial court stating that Ong and his mother were vs. In 1992. of the 1987 Constitution 526 SCRA 353 expresses that "No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Poe citizen." Herein. in relation to Section 74. The petitions were Issue: Whether FPJ was a natural born citizen. a Filipino on 16 September. the evidence on her Philippine citizenship. COMELEC the parties on the veracity of some of the entries on the birth certificate of FPJ and the marriage certificate of his Facts: Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16. 1940. Poe and Bessie Kelley. The process not only as a voter but as a candidate. Pou are documents of public record in the custody of a she ran for and was elected governor of Davao Oriental. res judicata and jus sanguinis – had been in vogue. in a petition for quo warranto. Through its history. Secretary of Labor (1947). material. In Allan F. a Facts: Gregory was appointed by the President as registered voter." The term "natural-born citizens. be allowed to run for the offcie of the President of the Philippines. notwithstanding contesting her Filipino citizenship but the said petition was the ample opportunity given to the parties to present their likewise dismissed by the COMELEC. the only conclusions that could be drawn with in Napier Terrace. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each other 1952. Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old. certification and identification that he is a natural-born month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to be 20 August Filipino citizen.the 1987 Constitution. substantiate his case before the Court. Since was Lorenzo Poe. The records of the Court show that Ong is a sanguinis." is defined as indicated in his birth certificate. filed a petition for Omnibus Election Code. jus sanguinis or blood naturalized with his father.e. Telesforo Ybasco (Filipino) and Theresa that (1) The parents of FPJ were Allan F. which. and a resident of the abeyance in view of the question relating to his Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding citizenship. she Kelley. of the evidence may not establish conclusively that FPJ is finding no sufficient proof that respondent had renounced a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. of the opponent. per Roa vs. the She served as Provincial Board Member of the birth certificate of FPJ. at the age of fifteen. the Comelec en banc dismissed hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold the petition. Her violation of Section 78. to the some degree of certainty from the documents would be spouses. i. could qualify a person to being a “natural-born” naturalized Filipino citizen. First Division. His appointment was held in of age on the day of the election. jus soli. Considering the reservations made by Valles vs. (2) FPJ was born to them on 20 August 1939. Ong maintained that he to include "those who are citizens of the Philippines from is a natural born Filipino citizen and subsequently birth without having to perform any act to acquire or obtained from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ a perfect their Philippine citizenship. that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material In the 1995 local elections. must not only be issue on the case. 1934 parents. she was married to Leopoldo Lopez. as well. Fornier has utterly failed to disqualification before the COMELEC. as so ruled in original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic Romualdez-Marcos vs. and (5) At the time of his death on 11 then. four modes of acquiring citizenship . Rosalind Lopez ran misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. and to prove whether or not there 10 . Only two. Francisco Rabat. 1939 during the regime of the 1935 Constitution.. so as to dismissed. (3) left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines. (4) The father of Allan F. and the death certificate of Lorenzo Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. In 1949. jus soli and jus Held: No. Jus soli. Poe and Bessie Marquez (Australian). The alleged subsequent citizen of the Philippines. However. But while the totality therefor her alleged Australian citizenship. evidence by both contending parties during the Jr. Western Australia. at least forty years Associate Justice to the SC. alleging as ground proceedings before the COMELEC. Ermita Held: Section 2. did not last long. Collector of recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of Customs (1912). Broome. the date. The documents have been submitted in Her election was contested by her opponent. position and evidence. at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila. Issue: Is Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen? naturalization. public officer. only the Supreme Court had has been material misrepresentation. marriage certificate of Allan F.. Petitioners claim that Ong is a Chinese citizen such election. relationship would now become the primary basis of citizenship by birth. able to read and write. Gil Taojo. she has continuously participated in the electoral September 1954. but also deliberate and willful. Article VII.

Private respondent’s father. country. H700888 the acquisition of Philippine citizenship. was place of birth. Thus. these laws defined who were again raised as an issue when she ran for re-election as deemed to be citizens of the Philippine islands. Philippine Bill of 1902 defined Philippine citizens as: Her candidacy was questioned by the herein petitioner. there are the be Philippine citizens. 15. before the adoption of this Constitution had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. 1988. (2) Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the she was married to a Filipino. to the Constitutions. September 19. thereby making her also a treaty of peace between the United States and Spain Filipino citizen ipso jure under Sec 4 of CA 473. Western Australia. Broome. The governor of Davao Oriental in the May 11. except such by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Filipino citizen under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. declaring her a Filipino citizen Telesforo Ybasco. (b) On even date. is a Filipino citizen. and Theresa Marquez. on the other hand. Issue: WON Rosalind Lopez is a Filipino citizen and (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents therefore qualified to run for public office who. Thus. and entitled to the protection of the United States. a fact duly evidenced by a certified true Oriental governor. she has nonetheless renounced her Philippine 11 . private respondent can also claim Australian organic acts by which the United States governed the citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. which were the laws in force at the time respondent registered herself with the Bureau of of her birth. the COMELEC’s First Division came out with continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on a Resolution dismissing the petition. the principle of jus sanguinis. copy of an entry in the Registry of Births. and then resided in the Philippine Islands. placing Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. 1899 accordingly cancelled as certified to by the Australian and resided therein including their children are deemed to Embassy in Manila. and their respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen children born subsequent thereto. Historically. qualified to run for a public office because held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such (1) her father. Thereunder. this was a year before the 1935 Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine Constitution took into effect and at that time. she renounced her Australian citizenship on January ninety-eight. private of the same laws. has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for and (c) She was issued Australian Passport No. The citizenship of private respondent was once Among others. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1. she applied for the The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution issuance of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR). The fact of her being born in Australian. 404695 dated the Philippines. By virtue reliance on the admitted facts that: (a) In 1988. also assumption that the private respondent is a Filipino known as the Jones Law. nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. eighteen hundred and that. place of his/her birth. Telesforo Ybasco. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli. maintains that the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law. a child follows the citizenship. is a Filipino citizen. as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli So also. (3) and signed at Paris December tenth. eighteen hundred and ninety- The Commission on Elections ruled that private nine. Telesforo Ybasco. (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. all inhabitants of the Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11. COMELEC Resolutions. 1902 Petitioner also contends that even on the and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29. as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal then at most. 1998 elections. having been Daet. 4 xxx all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands Cirilo Valles. a Filipino citizen and native of Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. elect Philippine principle of jus sanguinis. Held: Yes (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Under both organic acts. 1916. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines Ratio: The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the and. Rosalind Lopez was born on May 16. and (4) furthermore. herein private Immigration as an Australian national and was issued respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. Telesforo private respondent is an Australian citizen. spouses. is likewise a citizen of Alien Certificate of Registration No. 1934 subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 in Napier Terrace. what served citizenship. 1988. upon reaching the age of majority. under the Petitioner. Camarines Norte. Telesforo’s daughter. 1879 in Daet. shall be deemed and and therefore. which which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. citizen. the eleventh day of April. an born to a Filipino father. the herein private respondent. was born on January 5. duly qualified to run for the elective position of Davao Camarines Norte. SEC. to wit: on March 3.

Petitioner also maintains that even on the (4) By accepting commission in the military. it was ruled that the case of Aznar. and her As aptly appreciated by the COMELEC. And. of another state. petitioner’s (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the claim that respondent must go through the process of constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining repatriation does not hold water. without she acquires his nationality. Philippine citizenship. is bereft of merit. such fact alone terminated her Australian holder of an Australian passport and had an alien citizenship. as a result. In the case of Mercado vs. Manzano and effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen. Manzano. a plenary pardon or amnesty has “dual citizenship” as used in the Local Government Code been granted: and and reconciled the same with Article IV. and that an application for an alien certificate of persons with dual citizenship. Philippine citizenship. the Court ruled that the mere fact that for candidates with dual citizenship. private respondent executed a Declaration of against her claim of Filipino citizenship.citizenship. it is enough that they respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a certificate of candidacy. upon her marriage. only a year and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. to a foreigner 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance. 1992. Since private respondent did not (2) By express renunciation of citizenship. she is disqualified to run for governor of (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization. petitioner cited Mercado vs. in Mercado vs. COMELEC and in the more dual citizenship did not automatically disqualify her from recent case of Mercado vs. the same the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of must be express. such renunciation must be express. The application of the herein private Richard F. 1992. as well. The filing of a certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship. Under Commonwealth Act No. still. operates as an effective Makati. Australian passport. the Australian passport of private respondent does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation was cancelled. were mere acts of assertion of her private respondent’s application for an Alien Certificate of Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of same. herein private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy Thus. the aforesaid acts holding of an Australian passport. As held by this court in the case of Australia on May 12. the Court explained that dual citizenship Petitioner’s contention that the application of private as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual respondent for an alien certificate of registration. one Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines an American passport on April 22. and as an involuntary consequence of In order that citizenship may be lost by the conflicting laws of different countries. Munro of the Embassy of Australia in Manila. when the before the termination of his American citizenship. Thus. under Commonwealth Act 63. Manzano. on February Aznar. as certified to by Second Secretary of one’s citizenship. citing Section 40 of Republic Act 7160 (6) By having been declared by competent authority. citizenship. on September 19. the fact that the private respondent had to rest in the case of Aznar vs. lose or renounce her Philippine citizenship. and her allegiance. To buttress this contention. deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war. performing any act. In running for a public office. and the citizenship . it was held that the fact that respondent This is so because in the certificate of candidacy. were just assertions of his American nationality renunciation of foreign citizenship. which is under oath. For renunciation Renunciation of Australian Citizenship. issuance to her of an Australian passport on March 3. too. 1997.she was an Australian and a Filipino. private respondent had dual Residence (ICR). Section 5 of the (7) In case of a woman. And. situations in which a Filipino citizen may. 1988. Manzano and COMELEC. a otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. the mere fact that Rosalind Lopez was a in 1992. duly registered in to effectively result in the loss of citizenship. respondent for an alien certificate of registration. naval or air assumption that the private respondent had dual service of a foreign country. Davao Oriental. at the most. Therefore. as in the case of were enough to settle the issue of the alleged dual 12 . by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country. This issue was put Thus. to terminate their status as Filipino. a Filipino citizen that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another country may lose his citizenship: has not been included as a ground for losing one’s (1) By naturalization in a foreign country. Furthermore. Recognizing if. Moreover. COMELEC. be also a citizen renunciation. twenty-one years of age or more. it is significant to note that on January effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate 15 1992. the fact 1988. certificate of registration are not acts constituting an Then. 63. an application for an alien certificate of registration 11. the Court clarified unless subsequently. Such before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of declaration.

1994. 1967 claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of Representatives since Facts: Zita Ngo was married to Florencio Burca. Antonio Bengson III. The record showed. 2630. of Filipino parents. The HRET likewise denied qualifications and none of the disqualifications for petitioner's motion for reconsideration. the petition the Second District of Pangasinan. on Elections in SPA. “Indeed. the present: Supreme Court held that she herself must file a petition for 1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a citizenship or naturalization. the procedural issue Act No. and person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization. On November 5. 2000. resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the herein respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine private respondent. Zita is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative was declared a Filipino citizen. controversy where said person is a party. the principle of res judicata generally does citizenship should not be handed out blindly to any alien not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. Indeed. The evidence adduced by petitioner Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the United States. i. he lost his Filipino citizenship. Surigao. i. weight of prior rulings on citizenship. Although the general rule was set forth in the 2 If there is no valid repatriation. and to this general rule was recognized. He was elected as the Representative of notwithstanding. ideological beliefs. customs and that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may traditions. and sought the cancellation of her alien certification of 13 . to make the effort easier or simpler.] Thus. Zita was a Chinese citizen. considered on the merits. who was then running for reelection. then he can be case of Moy Ya Lim Yao. 473. section 6 of the Constitution.’” [Emphasis supplied. an exception ‘irrespective of moral character. HRET (US Marines Corps. the political privilege of concerned. 3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. After trial. if an alien wife of a be applied in cases of citizenship. The Solicitor renunciation was effective. He was born in San Clemente. On March 2. 1985. a Filipino he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article citizen and a resident of Ormoc City. Commissioner of Immigration. husband does not ipso facto grant Philippine citizenship to Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is the alien wife. respondent Cruz reacquired his supervening event to warrant a reversal of such prior Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic resolutions. that the Philippine citizenship of the anew. there appears sufficient Facts: Respondent Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the basis to rely on the prior rulings of the Commission on Philippines.citizenship of Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. petitioner’s claim that private General opposed such petition and moved that the petition respondent must go through the whole process of be dismissed because: (1) there was no procedure under repatriation holds no water. woman on the sole basis of her marriage to a Filipino— However. VI. the following must be Filipino wishes to acquire Philippine citizenship. Petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with Burca vs. the resolution or decision thereon is married to a Filipino citizen. 46333. No. and was a holder dismissing the petition for quo warranto and declaring of Native Born Certificate of Residence No. the HRET rendered its decision that she was born in Gigaquit. 2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative 1 Citizenship derived from that of another. Since her registration with the Bureau of Immigration. as from a took active part in the resolution thereof.e. However. It had the same ratiocination as those of its that the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out previous rulings. the law that can judicially declare citizenship to a particular Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship person. The Court ruled in identification with Filipino ideals. He won over petitioner cannot prosper. in the case of Burca vs. He insists Philippines. Prior to her marriage. though not really binding. 95-066 and EPC 92-54 which April 27. prior cases. repatriation) official findings. naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. She Cruz the duly elected Representative of the Second filed a petition declaring herself as possessing all the District of Pangasinan. is substantially the same evidence presented in these two As a Consequence. Republic. Petitioner failed to show any new evidence or On March 17. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent Bengzon III vs. Tarlac. primarily because she was proceedings. the case did not foreclose the summarily deported for being an undocumented alien. however. citing the case of Moy court and held that Zita was not a citizen of the Ya Lim Yao vs. Republic the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) January 30. 1960. generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent Held: The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower proceeding challenging the same.e. and (2) fatal defects in the petition.

services in the armed forces of the allied present jurisprudence. (3) service in the Armed Forces of Two conditions of an effective election of Phil citizenship the United States at any other time. However. It should be availed of with Filipina. yrs over the age of majority. passed. from the Velayo case. can still be Voter Cert from COMELEC. Being born in April 1964. Petition for Admission to the Phil Bar. so. 1)WON Ching has elected Phil citizenship w/in a In respondent Cruz's case. WON his citizenship has retroacted to the United States. suppressed when convenient. If he was originally a natural. after graduating from St. If Ching formally elects Phil citizenship.A. and Cert as a member of the considered a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao. COMELEC. a status which any reasonable yardstick. from the Cuenco case born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Chinese citizen. No. Commonwealth Act. and (5) political economic 1st – the mother of the person making the election must necessity. The ’98 Bar Examinations. the latter not being a tedious In re Ching. Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his (Ching) election of Phil citizenship. already 35 yrs old when he complied w/ the requirements or return to. enthusiasm and promptitude Phils July 1998: Ching. 63). April 1999: results of Bar Exams were released and Ching Ruling: The petition is without merit. La Union also from Philippine citizenship. he subsequently reacquired time he took the bar. the allowable pd w/in which to he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. in La Union. law. Louis Djumantan vs. (C. (4) marriage of a (from OSG): Filipino woman to an alien. forces in World War II. Indonesian wife is to be deported after provided he must submit proof of his Phil citizenship expiration of her extended stay here as an alien. It bears exercise the privilege. He was further required to submit more proof of citizenship. (2) by 1935 Consti was a Chinese citizen and continued to be repatriation. No. it who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the would already be beyond the reasonable time allowed by armed forces. and Prescila Dulay. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost majority (w/c means a reasonable time interpreted by the his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a Sec of Justice as 3 yrs. his original status before he lost his Philippine of C. Held: Court denies Vicente D Ching’s application for Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the admission to the Philippine Bar(ouch!) Republic and having registered the same in the Civil Registry respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered Ratio: 1& 2) No. extended up to 7 yrs. 2630. Ching has resided in the fervor. filed an application to take the Facts: Filipino married an alien woman in Indonesia. he will Issues: be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. and may be naturalized Filipino citizen. be a Phil citizen Repatriation results in the recovery of the original 2nd – election must be made upon reaching the age of nationality. by his original status as a natural-born citizen. unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those Phil citizenship. 914 and painstaking process. he was stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover. RE Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar Also. No 625 in June ’99. Domingo (Marriage) University in Baguio City.A. No.Since birth. Filipino who became an American citizen. enumerates OSG commented that Ching being the “legitimate child of the three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be a Chinese father and a Filipino mother and born under the reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by naturalization.A. He was already more then 14 citizenship. Bar Matter No. he lost his Filipino citizenship reasonable time when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of the 2)If affirmative. Philippine citizenship under R. a natural-born Nov 1998: Ching submitted certification that he is CPA. and (3) by direct act of Congress. Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may July 1999: Ching filed Manifestation w/ Affidavit of Election however reacquire the same in the manner provided by of Phil Citizenship and his Oath of Allegiance.Issue: Whether or not respondent Cruz. 14 . Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a Facts: April 1964: Vicente D Ching born as the legitimate commodity that can be claimed when needed and son of sps Tat Ching. Although the Court is sympathetic of his plight. Filipino husband and Indonesian wife wanted to fix Sept 1998: Court allowed Ching to take the exams domicile in RP. controlling statues and jurisprudence compel the Court in its decision. Ching’s election was clearly beyond.

but cancelled the certificate of candidacy of Manzano on the with naturalized citizens who maintain allegiance to their grounds of his dual-citizenship.5 Article IV of the alleging that Manzano was an American citizen. being born in the USA. 1998 elections for vice-mayoralty of of a person’s volition. disqualification. Generally. after the age of majority. an alien allowed to Private respondent Manzano was then proclaimed as stay temporarily may apply for a change of status and vice-mayor of Makati City. and 1998 Philippine ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse elections which effectively renounced his US citizenship her from her failure to depart from the country upon the under American law. Mercado. therefore posting a disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril threat to a country’s sovereignty.40(d) of the Local Government within 5 years after the cause for deportation arises.40(d) of the Local Government citizenship” in the aforementioned disqualification clause Code. he no longer expiration of her extended stay here as alien. Any Constitution and laws under principle jus sanguinis (the misrepresentation made in securing entry into the country right of blood). “I by operation of the US constitution and laws under am not a permanent resident of . it arises out of circumstances of Important details on Edu Manzano: born September 4. Hence. Under Sec 13 of the Immigration Act.” resolution of the COMELEC en banc and to declare Manzano disqualified to hold the office of vice-mayor of Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. birth or marriage. USA to Filipino parents. loyalty post: Eduardo B. petitioner affected unless the deportation proceedings are made contends that through Sec. “dual him according to Sec. In Sec. where a person is recognized to be a 1955 in San Francisco. Dual Makati City. Manzano filed a motion for reconsideration. obtained US citizenship March 27. Manzano. Dual allegiance is a result On the May 11. In private respondent’s certificate of the proclamation of Manzano as winner. the concern was not with dual 7. foreign country. But on August 31. 1995. Manzano natural visitor is a matter that could influence the exercise of born Filipino citizen. Ernesto S. by some positive act. Dual citizenship is an issue Gabriel V. is subject to deportation. Manzano opposed the motion to intervene. registered himself as Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino citizen does not a voter and voted in the 1992. and the change of immigration status from temporary visitor to permanent resident is a blatant abuse of Although he is registered as an alien with the Philippine immigration laws. entry or at any place other than a designated port of entry Issue: WON Manzano was no longer a US citizen. by being born to Filipino parents. On May Constitution on Citizenship. prohibit and prevent their entry into the country. • Manzano. which disqualifies countries of origin even after naturalization. must mean “dual allegiance”. Congress has “command[ed] in FACTS: explicit terms the ineligibility of persons possessing dual This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the allegiance to hold elective office. The motion was unresolved. Therefore. The deportation of an alien under said clause has a prescriptive period and shall not be Held: nvoking the maxim dura lex sed lex. It should suffice that upon filing of certificates for 1998. the Second Division of the COMELEC citizenship per se. had US citizenship. California. Under Philippine law. it is a situation wherein a Makati City. the right of the president to expel or deport he has not lost his Filipino citizenship since he has not aliens whose presence is deemed inimical to public renounced it and has not taken an oath of allegiance to interest is as absolute and unqualified as the right to the USA. Bureau of Immigration and holds and American passport. 1998. I will support and defend the Constitution of the 15 .” “I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. and to two or more states. the COMELEC en banc (with 1 commissioner candidacy. Code (which declares as “disqualified from running for elective local position… Those Mercado vs. Manzano (Edu Manzano) with dual-citizenship”). 1998: “I am a Filipino citizen…Natural-born”. or immigrant to . citizenship is involuntary. saying: candidacy. he made these statements under oath on •Manzano. Manzano won the elections but his because a person who has this raises a question of which proclamation was suspended due to a pending petition for state’s law must apply to him/her.Held: The civil status of an alien applicant as a temporary Yet. Daza III. national by two or more states. a principle of jus soli (basis is place of birth). 3 candidates competed for the person simultaneously owes. by operation of the 1935 Philippine discretion on the part of the immigration authorities. such persons with dual citizenships have abstaining) reversed the Second Division’s ruling on the elected their Philippine citizenship to terminate their dual cancellation of the certificate of candidacy and directing citizenship. persons with Mercado sought to intervene in the case for mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification.

Jr. Labo is ineligible to hold public was simply an assertion of his American nationality before office in the Philippines. The registered as an American citizen with the Philippine earlier contrary decision by the COMELEC is totally Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and that he holds baseless. leaves no doubt of his election of Baguio City. has not reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of the three methods prescribed in the Constitution: (1) direct act Plus. Labo's disqualification alone does not entitle him to take office. His marriage was later declared void for being bigamous. Labo vs. the elected Vice Mayor shall replace Labo. 9225 to returning Filipino citizen. Luis Lardizabal. Datumanong (Secretary of Justice) Labo returned to the Philippines using an Australian passport and obtained an Alien Certificate of Registration Facts: Petitioner filed this petition to prevent Justice (ACR).” Therefore. The second. is a Filipino citizen and sufficed to renounce his American citizenship. choice of the people. He had lost his of the United States… Philippine citizenship by all three modes specified in the Constitution: (1) naturalization in a foreign country. In Frivaldo v. and (3) repatriation. filed a petition for quo warranto.A. allegiance of citizens is inimical to national interest and Labo ran and won as Mayor of Baguio City. Mercado’s contention that the oath of allegiance contained The contention that his marriage to an Australian national in private respondent’s certificate of candidacy is did not automatically divest him of Filipino citizenship is insufficient to constitute his renunciation of his American irrelevant. in 1992. Also. placer. to be effective. removing any disqualification he might have as a dual- citizen. The Constitution explicitly the Philippine Government. Manzano’s oath of allegiance. when his requires the election of Philippine citizenship to be made marriage was declared void on the grounds of bigamy. of res judicata does not apply to questions of citizenship. Instead. Being a second-placer. and (3) subscribing to oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government when he an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of ran for Governor in 1988. and in 1995. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Commission on Immigration and Deportation since he has Sec. equally without merit is his contention ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. his that. 5. Despite getting the second highest number of has spent his life here. He applied for a change in status from immigrant Secretary Datumanong from implementing R. COMELEC (Australian Citizenship) Facts: Ramon Labo. and votes. Held: 16 . he clearly is not the Philippine citizenship.Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto…” The filing of such certificate of candidacy 1st Issue: WON Ramon Labo. 1997should not be such a big deal.A. petitioner states that dual citizenship is inimical to national interest. (2) Frivaldo lost his American citizenship when he took his express renunciation of citizenship. shall be dealt with by law. Also. There was no claim that Labo had automatically citizenship. It can also be reversed because the doctrine the US dated April 22. A. such renunciation should have been Filipino citizenship has not been automatically restored made upon reaching the age of majority since no law upon the annulment of his Australian citizenship. Admitting that he was a registered alien does not mean that he is not still 2nd Issue: Whether Lardizabal can replace Labo if the a Filipino (Aznar v. COMELEC. and has taken part in past because he has not been duly elected by the people of Philippine elections. COMELEC). (2) naturalization. effectively hence qualified to hold public office in the Philippines. Lardizabal cannot assume the position of Mayor practiced his profession here. Every a foreign country. 9225 is unconstitutional and whether alleging that Labo is disqualified rom holding public office the court jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual on the grounds of alienage. and is even alleged to have been politically an American passport which he used for his last travel to motivated. the termination of his American citizenship. proclamation as Mayor be annulled. At the time of said travel. He was granted Australian citizenship. and asking that the latter's allegiance. together with the fact he Held: No. latter is ineligible to serve as Mayor. Jr. received his education here. married an Australian citizen in RA 9225 the Philippines. the use of an American passport Not being a Filipino citizen. Labo’s naturalization in Australia did not certificate of candidacy contains an oath of allegiance to confer him with dual citizenship. Issue:Whether R. but was denied by the arguing that R. it was held that “By laws Held: No. Article VI of the Constitution which states that dual not applied for reacquisition of his Filipino citizenship. the fact that Manzano admitted that he was of Congress. AASJS vs. Labo is not a Filipino citizen. He upon majority age.

even after their naturalization. It provides citizenship per se. of Dept of Budget and Mgmt. more commonly known as The law on dual allegiance. no jurisdiction yet to pass upon the issue of dual The case used the debates in the constitutional allegiance. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the member of the Phil Bar. What Rep. it does not recognize dual allegiance. Act Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. It is the physical RA 9189 presence of a person in a given area. Act No. also a from Section 3. legal relations because: vote under RA No 9189. but with th status of naturalized citizens Congress the system in w/c absentee voting should who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin be done by qualified Filipinos abroad.not a resident. to a misapplication of funds. domicile by operation of law). This is held to be a momentous case because away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who the core issue is the enfranchisement of some 7 million become naturalized citizens of other countries. Act No. 9225. at Domicile is that place where a person has certain least 18 yrs of age. Certiorari and absent. seeks a declaration that problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of certain provisions of RA No 9189 suffer from confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual constitutional infirmity. 9225. However. Emilia Boncodin. not otherwise disqualified by law. On its face. not a domicile. What under its Sec 29 to carry out the provisions and as happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern taxpayer. one has the intention of returning. 635 which takes opinions. Alicia Austria-Martinez. Nine other justices gave their separate the provision in Commonwealth Act No. was enacted No.a fixed permanent residence to w/c. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by FACTS: reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign  This is a case filed by petitioner Atty. petitioner Macalintal also seeks to restrain of Rep. manner of voting. officials from wasting public funds through the Moreover. Prohibition (July 2003)  Difference between residence & domicile. who is qualified to register and settled. who is abroad on the day of the elections. to rule on issues pertaining to dual disabled voters to cast their ballots at an election is purely statutory.a relatively new concept.  Overseas Absentee Voter. COMELEC  Domicile. It is an exception to the customary and usual done. Sec person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.10 Until this is voting. 1. The court held that that the intent of the convention to determine the intent of the framers re legislature in drafting Rep. an absentee remains legal disability caused for instance by minority. Ma. R.  Residence. Macalintal vs. as taxpayer.a temporary/permanent place of abode. completely mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters separable and distinct from the regular system of of what really constitutes dualallegiance. the Sec Alberto Romulo and Hon. it is assigned to him by law at the MOMENT OF BIRTH  Absentee. it would be premature for the judicial department. A person cannot be (domicile of origin). Such Act appropriates funds allegiance to the concerned foreign country. w/c results Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self.A. executing provision. Macalintal. Rep.the framers were not concerned with dual in lieu of Sec 2. simultaneously a resident and an absentee under 2. insanity or attached to his residence in the Phils as residence is marriage in the case of a woman (constructive domicile or considered synonymous to domicile. 9225 is constitutional and that the Court has Ponencia was penned by J. It implies factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. Exec By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic. The legislature still has to enact the  RA No 9189.a citizen of the Phils. 9225 is to do away with Absentee Voting. Act No. Art V of the Consti. Petitioner. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Such right of absentee and including this Court. community or country. Romulo country. Article IV of the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. when Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Plainly. It is assigned to him by law AFTER BIRTH on account of normal conditions.A person can only have a single domicile but he may have numerous places of residence. Section 5. he has a HOME there – that to which whenever.9 Congress was given a  Absentee voting. overseas Filipinos. The essential 17 . against COMELEC.fixed. It is devised to accommodate those RA 9139 engaged in military or civil life whose duties make it Common Wealth Act No 473 impracticable for them to attend their polling places Legislative Naturalization on the day of election. 3.

the Court is the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume prevented from making it mean what the Court actual physical permanent residence in the Phils not pleases. disqualification to vote in absentia.1. the votes he cast shall not be disqualified voting under this Act. and Court is not in a position to rule on the wisdom of the (d) The 2nd sentence in par 2 of Sec 25. Thus. the proclaim all the winning candidates violates Sec 4 Art presumption of abandonment of Phil domicile shall VI of Consti. CA 18 . He presents the ruling in Caasi v. Congressional Oversight Committee. and that the Court may have to permanent residents to register as voters is violative discard that particular ruling. upon review and approval of the JCOC. unless he/she executes. he/she must return to the Phils otherwise (b) The portion of the last par of Sec 17. upon Expressum facit cessare tacitum: where a law sets registration. it can be said that the promulgated by the Commission. ISSUES (Resolved in seriatim): However. w/o violating the latter’s by his physical absence from this country. an affidavit prepared for the purpose by down plainly its whole meaning. In fine.e. to wit: only consequences will be met accdg to RA No 9189. to wit: The IRR Although there is a possibility that the Filipino will not shall be submitted to the JCOC created by virtue of return after he has exercised his right to vote. amend and approve the IRR impractical.1. can exercise certain the Phils and presumed not to have lost his domicile powers over the COMELEC. must declare that he/she has not to wit: subject to the approval of the Joint applied for citizenship in another country. 2) Yes. to wit: It shall law or to repeal or modify it if such law is found review. The ff portions (4) of RA Phils not later than 3 yrs after approval of registration No 9189 are declared VOID for being unconstitutional: but it also requires the Filipino abroad. a temporary visitor or even on (a) The phrase in the 1st sentence of 1st par of Sec 17. w/c states that the Congress proclaim remain. via the JCOC. Such the Constitution. Congress itself was conscious of this probability and provided for a deterrence w/c is that the Filipino who RATIO: fails to return as promised stands to lose his right of 1) No. However. OSG held that ruling in said case does not 1) WON Sec 5 of RA No 9189 allowing immigrants or hold water at present. the this Act for prior approval. Accordingly. The requirement in Sec 1 Art V of the Consti w/c requires canvassing of the votes and the proclamation of the the voter must be a resident in the Phils for at least winning candidates for President and VP for the entire one yr. as is evident in its statutory affidavit shall also state that he/she has not applied construction and intent of the framers. business trip.5 of RA w/c empowers COMELEC to Panacea of the controversy: Affidavit for w/o it. election. considering that underlying intent of later than 3 yrs from approval of registration. Failure to return Filipino immigrants and permanent residents abroad shall be cause for the removal of the name of the the unquestionable right to exercise the right of immigrant or permanent resident from the Natl suffrage (Sec 1 Art V). However. and a resident in the place where he proposes nation must remain in the hands of Congress as its to vote for at least 6 mos immediately preceding an duty and power under Sec 4 ART VII of the Consti. revise. the Court finds that Sec 5 of Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent RA No 9189 is not constitutionally defective. distinction is the intent to return or the intent to leave wherein Court held that a “green card” holder US when the purpose for w/c the resident has taken up immigrant is deemed to have abandoned his domicile his abode ends. Congress should not have allowed COMELEC to Petitioner claims this is violative of the residency usurp a power that constitutionally belongs to it. an exception is provided i. of the residency requirement in Sec 1 Art V of Consti? 2) WON Sec 18. w/c is to grant for citizenship in another country. (c) The 2nd sentence of par 1 of Sec 19. Sec 5 of independence under Sec 1 Art IX-A of the Consti? RA No 9189 does not only require the promise to resume actual physical permanent residence in the HELD: Petition partly granted. Sec 5 of RA No 9189 enumerates those who are suffrage. The qualified Filipino abroad who executed the winning candidates for Pres & VP? an affidavit is deemed to have retained his domicile in 3) WON Congress. It disqualifies an invalidated because he was qualified to vote on the immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized date of the elections. WON he is a green card holder. as such in the host country. and residence in the Phils.

owe its origin from the Constitution. J.  The burden of establishing a change in domicile is amend and revise the Implementing Rules & upon the party who asserts it. It is intrinsic in the grant of legislative power (intent to return) must not be brushed off in itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent determining WON immigrants and permanent in a democratic system of govt. the burden rests on an immigrant or a independence of the COMELEC. Congress went beyond rely on a person’s declarations as to what he the scope of its constitutional authority. to the Phils. this another country and cannot be considered a qualified is the sole issue reacted to by COMELEC. and supervise over executive agencies through its veto 3) a man can have but 1 residence/domicile at a time. Hence. residents should be denied of their right to vote. legislative 2) domicile is not easily lost. the COMELEC is  Animus manendi: intention of returning there subject to congressional scrutiny especially during permanently budget hearings. 19 . The Court has no general  Elements of domicile: power of supervision over it except those specifically  Fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place granted by the Consti. review. permanent residence w/o the intention to abandon it COMELEC is not a mere creature of the legislature.  Opined his views on WON Sec 5 of RA NO 9189 is  Extent of exercise of Congress of its oversight powers violative of the residency requirement. Concurring Opinion:  Where he concurs:  COMELEC’s power is limited only to proclaiming  Congress could not have allowed COMELEC to Senators and Party-list Reps as winners. in the implementation of RA No 9189:  Actual and physical residence abroad should not ipso  Power of oversight: embraces all activities undertaken jure result or automatically be equated w/ by Congress to enhance its understanding of and abandonment of Phil domicile. other requisites for reacquiring the domicile of origin. its actual removal or change must be demonstrated. economy & efficiency of operation of govt activities).. Congress cannot abolish it as it can  The mere absence of an individual from his other agencies under the executive branch. he continues to be a domiciliary of Unlike the first 2 issues where it remained silent.. Vitug. power). age and exercise is beyond invasion by Congress. Physical presence is not a mere test of intent but the Principal confirming evidence of the intention Bellosillo. by vesting itself w/ the powers to approve. Until the intent is fulfilled upon one’s return provision of law unconstitutional. J.  Where he dissents:  Importance of residence: enables one to know the  The affidavit merely proves the intent to return but not needs and the problems of the locality/area. trampled upon the constitutional mandate of  Therefore.  To successfully effect change in domicile. 3) No. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: not part of the judiciary.. Concurring Opinion: power to strengthen its independence. The values of animus influence over the implementation of legislation it has manendi (intent to remain) and animus revertendi enacted.. its  3 Requisites of Voters: citizenship. allows Congress to retained until a new one is acquired.  COMELEC exercises quasi-judicial powers but it is Puno. It should not merely Regulations for RA No 9189. However.  Categories: congressional scrutiny (determine  Domicile is a question of intention and circumstances. 3 rules to be considered: congressional investigation (inherent power w/c 1) a man must have a residence/domicile somewhere. is abandoned even though the person has not yet arrived at the new domicile. residence. J. Concurring Opinion: of the person. once established it is supervision (most encompassing. involves a more intense digging of facts). the Court is left w/ no option but to withdraw his foreign domicile and reestablished his domicile in from its usual reticence (silence) in declaring a the Phils. Under such a permanent resident to prove that he has abandoned situation. COMELEC has the authority to proclaim the winning Domicile could not be established as soon as the old candidates only for Senators and Party-list Reps.  Congress should not have been given power over IRR of COMELEC for the latter was granted the Panganiban. The exercise a power exclusively bestowed upon it by the election returns for the positions of Pres & VP should Consti in its constitutional duty to canvass and be certified by the Bd of Canvassers to Congress & proclaim the winning candidates for Pres and VP not COMELEC. voter. J. Congress considers his home. it does not result in a loss or change of domicile. residence or domicile.

Once acquired. The presumption is in favor of the continuance of actual presence is no longer necessary to make Fils domicile.. Also. Facts: On 20 March 1995.. place.. In cases applying the Civil Code on the Unconstitutional. With freedom of choice country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to c. Vazquez-Arroyo. to live separately from her husband either by taking 3. Marcos is domiciled in Tacloban. J. Opinion: Mere absence of an individual from his/her permanent  Since the Consti fixes qualifications of voters. J. Marcos Immigrants have voluntarily and unambiguously resided and used to be a registered voter in San Juan and chosen actual. In De La Vina v. Villareal. it remains the domicile unless a wife could not be compelled to live with her husband on new one is obtained: pain of contempt. even the matter of a common residence between the It is not competent for Congress to diminish or alter husband and the wife during the marriage is not an iron- such qualification. physical and permanent residence in a in Manila. the 4.. unless the power to do so is married the former President Marcos in 1954. diminished or changed by result in a loss or change of domicile. Ynares-Santiago. Carpio. Sandoval-Gutierez. for obviously unambiguous. Marcos meets the residency  Concurs in the rest of the decisions on the given requirement to run as representative in Leyte issues. By capacitated persons held that it is not within the province of the courts at this b. not a  Residency requirement aims to serve as an domicilium necessarium. Carpio-Morales. the Court a. In Arroyo v. d. The Supreme Court domicile also allowed the wife to either obtain a new residence or 2. under the Civil from different legal viewpoints Code. such residence without the intention to abandon it does not cannot be increased. revert to her original domicile (apart from being allowed to opt for a new one). Concurring and Dissenting Residence and domicile are synonymous in election law. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: spouses could not be compelled to live with each other  Sec 5 of RA No 9189 Unconstitutional insofar that such that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence qualifications of voters set in Sec 1 Art V is clear and different from that of her husband or. Montejo contended that Tacloban was the constitutional requirement of residence and Marcos’ domicile of origin because she did not live there therefore should be declared UNconstitutional. Nowadays. a married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her Rules on Domicile husband during the existence of the marriage when the 1. our jurisprudence has recognize certain situations where the Callejo. Agapito A. J. Held: Yes.. Thus. she kept her expressly granted or necessarily implied. hence she meets the Constitutional requirement on residency. The burden of Proof is on the one who abroad aware of the country’s conditions and the alleges that a change of domicile has taken suitability of candidates for natl offices. Sr. J.. foreign country. through e-age communication facilities. J. Concur. Issue: Whether or not Mrs. The Supreme Court held that invaluable protection against fraud and interference. No person can have two or more domiciles at to choose a new domicile in such an event. Marcos vs COMELEC  Immigrant defined: a person who removes into a Facts: Roy Montejo questioned Marcos’ candidacy as country for the purpose of permanent residence representative of the 1st district of Leyte on the ground that  Dissent: Sec 5 of RA No 9189 grants the right of she is not a resident thereof as required by the suffrage to a category of voters who do not possess Constitution. Moreover. COMELEC should be animus manendi (intent to remain) or animus nonrevertendi (intent not to return). and Azcuna. and instances where the wife actually opts. except for certain purposes. In the the same time. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion: Romualdez. there Aquino vs. domicile of origin and merely gained a new home. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative 20 . Sec 5 of RA No 9189 is clad principle. No natural person must ever be without a husband has given cause for divorce. and render conjugal rights to the other. And Provable intent that it should be one’s fixed and permanent place of abode. With actual physical presence cohabit with. practical reasons. J. when she legislative enactment. question of common matrimonial residence. Every sui juris may change his domicile new residence or reverting to her domicile of origin. 5. until she was eight (8) years old.

scheduled for 11 May 1992. Aquino’s connection to the Second District of residence in Tolosa to qualify him to register as a voter in Makati City is an alleged lease agreement of a Barangay Malbog. residence or domicile but only to qualify as Whether or not Romualdez has voluntarily left the a candidate for Representative of the Second District of country and abandoned his residence in Tolosa. Issue: Whether “residency” in the certificate of candidacy In the early part of 1987. Aquino’s certificate of with the MTC of Tolosa. the or for like reasons. The intention not to been a resident of Tolosa since the early 1980’s. anew as a voter at Precinct No. the on 21-24 of February. That residence. Commission on Elections. Aquino stated that he was a caused the construction of his residential house therein. no for the Synchronized National and Local Election matter where he may be found at any given time. the issue. RTC Tacloban law is synonymous with “domicile”. Sometime in the early part of 1980. conditions and needs of the community from taking allowed him to be registered. left the Philippines and Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for sought “asylum” in the United States. the Commission on Elections found together with his immediate family. he did not delay his return to his residence at Malbog. The is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors. resident of the aforementioned district for 10 months. Held: No. of other residences in Metro Manila) indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to Issue: acquire a new. Romualdez registered himself eventually intends to return and remain. Tarlac for more than 52 years prior to that one-year residence in the Philippines and the six-month election. which imports not only Romualdez v.for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City. Philippines. In the 1984 Batasan Election and 1986 “snap” entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 Presidential Election. He soon thereafter also served as a Barangay Captain of Faced with a petition for disqualification.” where he. one intends to return.S. coupled with conduct indicative of Facts: such intention. Leyte Makati City. his domicile. for one. an elected Barangay Chairman of Malbog in 1982. Held: The place “where a party actually or During the registration of voters conducted by COMELEC constructively has his permanent home. RTC of Tacloban an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place. in the Philippines. Leyte. Romualdez acted as the Campaign year and 13 days. Acting on a motion When the People’s Power Revolution took place for reconsideration of the above dismissal. who had residence for the purposes of election law. in to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the fact. When Romualdez arrived in the Philippines. seat in Leyte. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent Philip Romualdez.. (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims the same reversed the MTC. Aquino won. and that he did not have the required Concepcion. 9 of Malbog. his certificate of candidacy. The absence therefrom during the period from 1986 up to short length of time he claims to be a resident of Makati 1991. is a natural born citizen of the residence to which when absent for business or pleasure. The term “residence” as used in the election Romualdez vs. some relatives and Commission on Election later issued an order suspending associates of the deposed President. Romualdez contended that he has condominium unit in the area. The Commission on Elections Manager of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan in Leyte where dismissed the petition on 6 May and allowed Aquino to run he voted. Leyte. he lack of constitutional qualification of residence. in the election of 8 May. In legal residence at Barangay Malbog. i. Romualdez attempted actually connotes “domicile” to warrant the disqualification to come back to the Philippines to run for a congressional of Aquino from the position in the electoral district. took special studies on the development of Leyte-Samar and international business finance. therefore may not register as a voter. petitioner. was established during the 21 . fearing for their the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved personal safety. 1986.e. he amended the the place. The purpose is known Romualdez to be a resident of the place and. On 2 June. While abroad. Romualdez. advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that Donato Advincula filed a petition for exclusion community for electoral gain. Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the and. He alleged that Romualdez candidacy in a previous (1992) election indicates that he was a resident of U. Tolosa.. and that establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in he has not abandoned his said residence by his physical his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. “fled” the country. MTC dismissed the petition but on appeal to RTC. in consonance with his decision to establish his in the case of the petitioner.A. that he had just recently arrived was a resident and a registered voter of San Jose.

and (3) an intention to abandon Annulment. disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. In order. the other disposing 3. 221 Bellis be entitled to successional rights. however. Furthermore. and The political situation brought about by the lived with a mistress with whom he has a child. sufficiently proven by experts and at the time of his death. may be lost by the Philippine law. The Zamora vs. and 335 (parents and children) 7. Certainly. respect by our courts Even if the other will was executed in the Philippines. Issue: 6. and the residence at the place chosen money. their sudden private respondent. the psychological incapacity under Article 36: conflict of laws rule of which. there must concur: (1) Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 residence or bodily presence in the new locality. there are no legitimes. still. Under Texas law. depended on his parents for aid and assistance. as well as a serious by virtue of her husband’s psychological incapacity. there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. Their going into self-exile until Issue: Whether or not Reynaldo is psychologically conditions favorable to them would have somehow incapacitated to perform his marital obligations to stabilized is understandable.early 1980’s to be at Barangay Malbog. he made two wills. should be given great their legitimes. Texas has 4. Psychological Incapacity must be shown to be no conflict rule (Rule of Private International Law) medically or clinically permanent or incurable governing successional rights. for the new domicile must be actual. his 8. In both wills.” neglect in performing their obligations. (2) an Inter Country Adoption Law. there are no compulsory heirs. in turn refers the matter back 1. in turn. “voluntary”. In other words. 2. voluntarily abandoned his residence and established his Failure of their expectations is not tantamount to domicile to somewhere else. A procedure whereby a legal matter is referred by the SC enumerated the guidelines in invoking the conflict of laws rules of the forum to a foreign state. the change of residence his friends than his family on whom he squandered his must be voluntary. interpretations given by the National Appellate Held: Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the The said illegitimate children are not entitled to PI while not controlling or decisive. RA 8043 intention to remain there. the recognized of the celebration of the marriage illegitimate children were not given any share. Bellis b. concern over the safety and welfare of the members of their immediate families. the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: a. adopting another choice of domicile. or as “abandonment of residence” at least in Held: NO. to acquire a new domicile by choice. Roridel “People’s Power Revolution” must have truly caused great filed a case for the declaration of nullity of their marriage apprehension to the Romualdezes. thus a valid ground to render the departure from the country cannot be described as marriage void. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” in no wise constitutes psychological Renvoi incapacity. even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by Residence thus acquired. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage the old domicile. CA purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be Facts: The respondent preferred to spend more time with for an indefinite period of time. Marriage is valid. Before he died. psychological incapacity. and was dishonest to his wife regarding his finances. the context that these terms are used in applying the They seem to have a difficulty or outright refusal or concept of “domicile by choice. They’re not No evidence on record that Romualdez incapable of doing them. Leyte. the burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage to the law of the forum (remission) or a third state belong to the plaintiff (transmission).Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the law. the incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time his Philippine properties. the essential obligations must be those embodied by Art Whether or not such illegitimate children of 69 to 71 (husband and wife) of FC as well as Art 220. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas c. Tolosa. alleged in the complaint Facts: Amos G. d. the trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or national law. clearly explained in the decision one disposing his Texas properties. under Texas 5. will govern the properties for succession fiscal and Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the 22 . medically or clinically identified Bellis vs.

On 14 May 1991. (last sent not anymore needed on 14 April 1985 in Manila. meaning of “PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY” to the mot where said conduct. Regrettably. as so expressed by Art. Reynaldo showed signs of “immaturity and irresponsibility” on the early stages of the marriage. include their mutual obligations to live range of mental and behavioral conduct on the part of one together. a complaint for voiding the marriage Manila and proceeded to Baguio City. The Court of Appeals denied the appeals and affirmed in Pyschological incapacity must be characterized by (a) toto the RTC’s decision. observed and considered as a whole. dismissal. 02-11-10 after. the time the marriage is celebrated. that years constitute psychological incapacity? of two of her friends. On 16 August 1990. and that there is neither law nor society itself can always provide all the hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been specific answers to every individual problem to confine the meaning of ‘psychological incapacity’ to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly PETITION IS DENIED. CA observed from his tendency to spend time with his friends and squandering his money with them. and incurability. or at the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Reynaldo Molina. psychological condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. Leouel stands aggrieved. The Court reiterated its ruling in Santos v. no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity.S. warrants the meaning and significance to the marriage. demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. CA and Molina antecedence. Hence. trial court rendered judgment declaring the marriage void. Reynaldo did not present any evidence as he appeared Held: No. serious cases of personality disorders clearly tends to cause the union to self-destruct because it demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or 23nability to give defeats the very objectives of marriage. and a psychiatrist of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center. She did not communicate with Leouel and did his job in 1986.M.state. union. This dissolution of the marriage. In March 1987. 68 rights. Reynaldo left her under Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines. Reynaldo was relieved of for the U. GRAVITY (b) JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE (c) INCURABILITY. juridical Republic vs. In 1991. The couple are separated-in- RTC dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the fact for more than three years. Issue: Whether opposing or conflicting personalities should be construed as psychological incapacity Psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be Held: The Court of Appeals erred in its opinion the Civil truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that Code Revision Committee intended to liberalize the concomitantly must be assumed and dischargedby the application of Philippine civil laws on personal and family parties to the marriage which. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity. No decision shall be handed down unless the SC Facts: Roridel Olaviano was married to Reynaldo Molina issues a certification. very least to communicate with him. from his Facts: Plaintiff Leouel Santos married defendant Julia dependency from his parents. as well as his or her conduct in the long haul for The intendment of the law has been to confine the the attainment of the principal objectives of marriage. existing at even desperate. where psychological incapacity should refer to Undeniably and understandably. the failure of Julia to return home or to communicate with her husband Leouel for more than five only during the pre-trial conference. observe love. respect and fidelity and render spouse indicative of how he or she regards the marital help and support. On May 18 1988. No. a social worker. the years does not constitute psychological incapacity. Roridel became the sole breadwinner not return to the country. and holding psychological incapacity as a broad of the Family Code. his or her personal relationship with the other spouse. Court of Appeals. in his present situation. Julia left matters involving his finances. Leoul filed with the RTC thereafter. In the present case. 1986. there is no clear showing to us that the psychological defect 23 . for more than five Evidence for Roridel consisted of her own testimony. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals. Roridel filed a verified petition for Issue: Does the failure of Julia to return home. the present recourse. and gave birth to a son a year pursuant to SC resolution A. Santos vs. and his dishonesty on Bedia on September 20. The and their child a week later. Roridel resigned from her job in of Negros Oriental.

in this case. petitioner filed a Complaint for in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity. performance of some marital obligations. They lived together as husband and wife Issue: Did the Australian Divorce Decree sufficiently in Australia. (4) the incapacity must be clinically or medically 1989. a decree of divorce. (6) the essential marital obligation must be embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as On July 7. Held: No. the case was submitted for resolution. Garcia-Recio vs. 1987. Respondent prayed in his Answer that the Complaint be The Supreme Court granted the petition. documentary evidence of both parties.spoken of is an incapacity. 1996. they must be alleged and proven. the Court cannot conclude that the lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their respondent was legally capacitated to marry petitioner on marriage. January 12. She claimed that she learned of respondent’s Code. 1993. was married to Editha and Order.[16] After they submitted their respective memoranda. There being no proof on the legal effects of the divorce decree obtained Starting October 22. respondent became an Australian respondent. Divorce is of different types. promulgated the guidelines in the subsisting marriage at the time he married her on January interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family 12. removing any visages of it being the most liberal marriage to Editha Samson only in November. enough. and its subsequent dissolution. and reversed dismissed on the ground that it stated no cause of action. in declare the marriage null and void be granted for it may 24 . Australia because Tribunal of the Catholic Church. and set aside the assailed decision. concluding that the The Office of the Solicitor General agreed with marriage of Roridel Olaviano to Reynaldo Molina subsists respondent. respondent averred that. established the respondent’s capacity to remarry? purportedly dissolving the marriage. 1992. 1994. (7) was pending — respondent was able to secure a divorce interpretation made by the National Appellate Matrimonial decree from a family court in Sydney. While the two were still in Australia. divorce procedure in the world: (1) The burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff. Neither can the petitioners prayer to conjugal assets were divided on May 16. and Articles 220 to 225 of the wedding and while the suit for the declaration of nullity same code as regards parents and their children. their January 1994. The divorce decree even contained a citizen. on March 1. The court marked and admitted the and remains valid. 1995. he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage and alleged in the complaint. divorce obtained by the respondent must have been Petitioner — a Filipina — and respondent were married on limited. was issued by an Australian family court. but appears to be more of a accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in “difficulty. sufficiently proven by expert.” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the Australia. a Filipino. (3) The incapacity must marriage to an Australian citizen had been validly be proven existing at the time of the celebration of dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in marriage. 1997.” facts. He contended that his first clearly explained in the decision. Recio. 1994 in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church in Cabanatuan City. Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo. 1998 — or about five years after the couple’s regards husband and wife. as far back as incapacity must be medically or clinically identified. in Malabon. (5) such illness must be grave in 1994. as shown by a “Certificate of Australian restriction which bolstered the court’s contention that the Citizenship” issued by the Australian government. There was no showing what type of divorce was procured by the On June 26. (2) the root cause of psychological In his Answer. the trial court rendered the assailed Decision Facts: Rederick A. and (8) the trial must the “marriage ha[d] irretrievably broken down. On May 18.” order the fiscal and the Solicitor-General to appeal as counsels for the State. petitioner and respondent under Australian law. Mere showing of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” On March 3. 1989. an Australian citizen. Samson. In their application for a marriage It is well settled that in our jurisdiction that our courts license. thus. Recio Thereafter. respondent was declared as “single” and cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. on the ground of bigamy — respondent allegedly had a prior The Court. 1998. he was legally capacitated to marry petitioner permanent or incurable. Rizal. Like any other “Filipino.

entitled to validity in the country. In the case of Tenchavez vs. 7 years after their marriage. In this jurisdiction and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort. 25 . Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily. During the cohabitation. petitioner learned that the divorce decree obtained in the Dominican Republic was not recognized in the Philippines.turn out that respondent was after all capacitated. Perez vs. In 2001. CA Facts: Private respondent Tristan Catindig and Lily Gomez obtained divorce decree in the Dominican Republic. Issue: Is the divorce decree valid? Held: No. it was ruled that a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens. sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code is not entitled to recognition as valid. he married petitioner Elmar Perez in the US. Escano. Hence this case is remanded to the trial court. subsequent to the foreign decree of divorce. Subsequently.