G.R. Nos. 92191-92 July 30, 1991 ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF RE RESENTATI!

ES AN" JOSE ONG, JR., respondents. G.R. Nos. 92202-03 July 30, 1991 SI#TO T. BALAN$UIT, JR., petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF RE RESENTATI!ES AN" JOSE ONG, JR., respondents. Hechanova & Associates for petitioner Co. Brillantes, Nachura, Navarro and Arcilla Law Offices for respondent Ong, Jr.

The petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent premised on the follo&ing grounds1 )) Jose ng, Jr. is not a natural born citi"en of the 2hilippines3 and 4) Jose ng, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of $orthern %amar. The HRET in its decision dated $ovember 5, )*+*, found for the private respondent. - motion for reconsideration &as filed b( the petitioners on $ovember )4, )*+*. This &as, ho&ever, denied b( the HRET in its resolution dated !ebruar( 44, )*+*. Hence, these petitions for certiorari. 6e treat the comments as ans&ers and decide the issues raised in the petitions. ON TH !""# O$ J#%!"&!CT!ON The first 0uestion &hich arises refers to our 7urisdiction. The Constitution e.plicitl( provides that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the %enate Electoral Tribunal (%ET) shall be the sole 'udges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and (ualifications of their respective members. ("ee -rticle 89, %ection ),, Constitution) The authorit( conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The use of the &ord sole emphasi"es the e.clusivit( of the 7urisdiction of these Tribunals. The %upreme Court in the case of La)atin v. H% T ()5+ %CR- :*) ;)*++<) stated that under the )*+, Constitution, the 7urisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal is original and e.clusive, vi)1 The use of the &ord =sole= emphasi"es the e.clusive

GUTIERRE%, JR., J.:p The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The HRET declared that respondent Jose ng, Jr. is a natural born !ilipino citi"en and a resident of #aoang, $orthern %amar for voting purposes. The sole issue before us is &hether or not, in making that determination, the HRET acted &ith grave abuse of discretion. n 'a( )), )*+,, the congressional election for the second district of $orthern %amar &as held. -mong the candidates &ho vied for the position of representative in the second legislative district of $orthern %amar are the petitioners, %i.to /alin0uit and -ntonio Co and the private respondent, Jose ng, Jr. Respondent ng &as proclaimed the dul( elected representative of the second district of $orthern %amar.

character of the 7urisdiction conferred (-ngara v. Electoral Commission, supra at p. )54). The e.ercise of po&er b( the Electoral Commission under the )*:> Constitution has been described as =intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had originall( remained in the legislature.= (id., at p. ),>) Earlier this grant of po&er to the legislature &as characteri"ed b( Justice 'alcolm as =full, clear and complete3 (8eloso v. /oard of Canvassers of #e(te and %amar, :* 2hil. ++5 ;)*)*<) ?nder the amended )*:> Constitution, the po&er &as un0ualifiedl( reposed upon the Electoral Tribunal and it remained as full, clear and complete as that previousl( granted the #egislature and the Electoral Commission, (#achica v. @ap, 4> %CR- )AB ;)*5+<) The same ma( be said &ith regard to the 7urisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal under the )*+, Constitution. (p. AB)) The Court continued further, =. . . so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the po&er to be the sole 7udge of all contests relating to election, returns and 0ualifications of members of the House of Representatives, an( final action taken b( the HRET on a matter &ithin its 7urisdiction shall, as a rule, not be revie&ed b( this Court . . . the po&er granted to the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete and e.cludes the e.ercise of an( authorit( on the part of this Court that &ould in an( &ise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the same.= (pp. AB:CABA) 6hen ma( the Court in0uire into acts of the Electoral Tribunals under our constitutional grants of po&erD 9n the later case of %o*les v. H% T ()+) %CR- ,+B ;)**B<) the %upreme Court stated that the 7udgments of the Tribunal are be(ond

7udicial interference save onl( =in the e.ercise of this CourtEs soCcalled e.traordinar( 7urisdiction, . . . upon a determination that the TribunalEs decision or resolution &as rendered &ithout or in e.cess of its 7urisdiction, or &ith grave abuse of discretion or paraphrasing 'orrero, upon a clear sho&ing of such arbitrar( and improvident use b( the Tribunal of its po&er as constitutes a denial of due process of la&, or upon a demonstration of a ver( clear unmitigated ERR R, manifestl( constituting such FR-8E -/?%E ! G9%CRET9 $ that there has to be a remed( for such abuse.= (at pp. ,+>C,+5) 9n the leading case of +orrero v. Bocar (55 2hil. A4* ;)*:+<) the Court ruled that the po&er of the Electoral Commission =is be(ond 7udicial interference e.cept, in an( event, upon a clear sho&ing of such arbitrar( and improvident use of po&er as &ill constitute a denial of due process.= The Court does not venture into the perilous area of tr(ing to correct perceived errors of independent branches of the Fovernment, 9t comes in onl( &hen it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution calls for remedial action. The %upreme Court under the )*+, Constitution, has been given an e.panded 7urisdiction, so to speak, to revie& the decisions of the other branches and agencies of the government to determine &hether or not the( have acted &ithin the bounds of the Constitution. ("ee -rticle 8999, %ection ), Constitution) @et, in the e.ercise thereof, the Court is to merel( check &hether or not the governmental branch or agenc( has gone be(ond the Constitutional limits of its 7urisdiction, not that it erred or has a different vie&. 9n the absence of a sho&ing that the HRET has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of 7urisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court to e.ercise its corrective po&er3 it &ill not decide a matter &hich b( its nature is for the HRET alone to decide. ("ee 'arcos v. 'anglapus, ),, %CR- 55+ ;)*+*<) 9t has no po&er to look into &hat it thinks is apparent error.

-s constitutional creations invested &ith necessar( po&er, the Electoral Tribunals, although not po&ers in the tripartite scheme of the government, are, in the e.ercise of their functions independent organs H independent of Congress and the %upreme Court. The po&er granted to HRET b( the Constitution is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originall( in the legislature. (-ngara v. Electoral Commission, 5: 2hil. ):* ;)*:5<) 9n passing upon petitions, the Court &ith its traditional and careful regard for the balance of po&ers, must permit this e.clusive privilege of the Tribunals to remain &here the %overeign authorit( has place it. ("ee 8eloso v. /oards of Canvassers of #e(te and %amar, :* 2hil. ++5 ;)*)*<) 9t has been argued that under -rticle 89, %ection ), of the present Constitution, the situation ma( e.ist as it e.ists toda( &here there is an unhealth( oneCsided political composition of the t&o Electoral Tribunals. There is nothing in the Constitution, ho&ever, that makes the HRET because of its composition an( less independent from the Court or its constitutional functions an( less e.clusive. The degree of 7udicial intervention should not be made to depend on ho& man( legislative members of the HRET belong to this part( or that part(. The test remains the sameCmanifest grave abuse of discretion. 9n the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of po&er, no denial of due process on the part of the HRET &hich &ill necessitate the e.ercise of the po&er of 7udicial revie& b( the %upreme Court. ON TH !""# O$ C!T!, N"H!The records sho& that in the (ear )+*>, the private respondentEs grandfather, ng Te, arrived in the 2hilippines from China. ng Te established his residence in the municipalit( of #aoang, %amar on land &hich he bought from the fruits of hard &ork.

-s a resident of #aoang, ng Te &as able to obtain a certificate of residence from the then %panish colonial administration. The father of the private respondent, Jose ng Chuan &as born in China in )*B>. He &as brought b( ng Te to %amar in the (ear )*)>. Jose ng Chuan spent his childhood in the province of %amar. 9n #aoang, he &as able to establish an enduring relationship &ith his neighbors, resulting in his eas( assimilation into the communit(. -s Jose ng Chuan gre& older in the rural and seaside communit( of #aoang, he absorbed !ilipino cultural values and practices. He &as bapti"ed into Christianit(. -s the (ears passed, Jose ng Chuan met a natural bornC!ilipino, -gripina #ao. The t&o fell in love and, thereafter, got married in )*:4 according to Catholic faith and practice. The couple bore eight children, one of &hom is the private respondent &ho &as born in )*A+. The private respondentEs father never emigrated from this countr(. He decided to put up a hard&are store and shared and survived the vicissitudes of life in %amar. The business prospered. E.pansion became inevitable. -s a result, a branch &as setCup in /inondo, 'anila. 9n the meantime, the father of the private respondent, unsure of his legal status and in an une0uivocal affirmation of &here he cast his life and famil(, filed &ith the Court of !irst 9nstance of %amar an application for naturali"ation on !ebruar( )>, )*>A. n -pril 4+, )*>>, the C!9 of %amar, after trial, declared Jose ng Chuan a !ilipino citi"en. n 'a( )>, )*>,, the Court of !irst 9nstance of %amar issued an order declaring the decision of -pril 4+, )*>> as final and e.ecutor( and that Jose ng Chuan ma( alread( take his ath of -llegiance.

2ursuant to said order, Jose ng Chuan took his ath of -llegiance3 correspondingl(, a certificate of naturali"ation &as issued to him. -t the time Jose ng Chuan took his oath, the private respondent then a minor of nine (ears &as finishing his elementar( education in the province of %amar. There is nothing in the records to differentiate him from other !ilipinos insofar as the customs and practices of the local populace &ere concerned. !ortunes changed. The house of the famil( of the private respondent in #aoang, %amar &as burned to the ground. ?ndaunted b( the catastrophe, the private respondentEs famil( constructed another one in place of their ruined house. -gain, there is no sho&ing other than that #aoang &as their abode and home. -fter completing his elementar( education, the private respondent, in search for better education, &ent to 'anila in order to ac0uire his secondar( and college education. 9n the meantime, another misfortune &as suffered b( the famil( in )*,> &hen a fire gutted their second house in #aoang, %amar. The respondentEs famil( constructed still another house, this time a )5Cdoor apartment building, t&o doors of &hich &ere reserved for the famil(. The private respondent graduated from college, and thereafter took and passed the C2- /oard E.aminations. %ince emplo(ment opportunities &ere better in 'anila, the respondent looked for &ork here. He found a 7ob in the Central /ank of the 2hilippines as an e.aminer. #ater, ho&ever, he &orked in the hard&are business of his famil( in 'anila. 9n )*,), his elder brother, Emil, &as elected as a delegate to the )*,) Constitutional Convention. His status as a natural born citi"en &as challenged. 2arentheticall(, the Convention &hich in drafting the Constitution removed the une0ual treatment given to derived citi"enship on the basis of the motherEs citi"enship formall( and

solemnl( declared Emil ng, respondentEs full brother, as a natural *orn $ilipino. The Constitutional Convention had to be a&are of the meaning of natural born citi"enship since it &as precisel( amending the article on this sub7ect. The private respondent fre0uentl( &ent home to #aoang, %amar, &here he gre& up and spent his childhood da(s. 9n )*+A, the private respondent married a !ilipina named Gesiree #im. !or the elections of )*+A and )*+5, Jose ng, Jr. registered himself as a voter of #aoang, %amar, and correspondingl(, voted there during those elections. The private respondent after being engaged for several (ears in the management of their famil( business decided to be of greater service to his province and ran for public office. Hence, &hen the opportunit( came in )*+,, he ran in the elections for representative in the second district of $orthern %amar. 'r. ng &as over&helmingl( voted b( the people of $orthern %amar as their representative in Congress. Even if the total votes of the t&o petitioners are combined, ng &ould still lead the t&o b( more than ,,BBB votes. The pertinent portions of the Constitution found in -rticle 98 read1 %ECT9 $ ), the follo&ing are citi"ens of the 2hilippines1 ). Those &ho are citi"ens of the 2hilippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution3 4. Those &hose fathers or mothers are citi"ens of the 2hilippines3

:. Those born before Januar( ),, )*,:, of !ilipino mothers, &ho elect 2hilippine citi"enship upon reaching the age of ma7orit(3 and A. Those &ho are naturali"ed in accordance &ith la&. %ECT9 $ 4, $aturalCborn Citi"ens are those &ho are citi"ens of the 2hilippines from birth &ithout having to perform an( act to ac0uire or perfect their citi"enship. Those &ho elect 2hilippine citi"enship in accordance &ith paragraph : hereof shall be deemed naturalCborn citi"ens. The Court interprets %ection ), 2aragraph : above as appl(ing not onl( to those &ho elect 2hilippine citi"enship after !ebruar( 4, )*+, but also to those &ho, having been born of !ilipino mothers, elected citi"enship before that date. The provision in 2aragraph : &as intended to correct an unfair position &hich discriminates against !ilipino &omen. There is no ambiguit( in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, vi)1 'r. -"cuna1 6ith respect to the provision of section A, &ould this refer onl( to those &ho elect 2hilippine citi"enship after the effectivit( of the )*,: Constitution or &ould it also cover those &ho elected it under the )*,: ConstitutionD

!r. /ernas1 !t would appl. to an.*od. who elected -hilippine citi)enship *. virtue of the provision of the /012 Constitution whether the election was done *efore or after Januar. /3, /031. (Records of the Constitutional Commission, 8ol. ), p. 44+3 Emphasis supplied) ... ... ... 'r. Trenas1 The Committee on Citi"enship, /ill of Rights, 2olitical Rights and bligations and Human Rights has more or less decided to e.tend the interpretation of &ho is a naturalCborn citi"en as provided in section A of the )*,: Constitution b( adding that persons &ho have elected 2hilippine Citi"enship under the )*:> Constitution shall be naturalCbornD

-m 9 right 'r. 2residing fficerD !r. (es. ... ... ... 'r. $olledo1 -nd 9 remember ver( &ell that in the Reverend !ather /ernasE &ell &ritten book, he said that the decision &as designed merel( to accommodate former delegate Ernesto -ng and that the definition on naturalCborn has no retroactive effect. $o& it seems that the Reverend !ather /ernas is going against this intention b( supporting the amendmentD !r. /ernas1 -s the Commissioner can see, there has been an evolution in m( thinking. (Records of the Constitutional Commission, 8ol. ), p. )+*) /ernas1

... ... ... 'r. Rodrigo1 /ut this provision becomes ver( important because his election of 2hilippine citi"enship makes him not onl( a !ilipino citi"en but a naturalCborn !ilipino citi"en entitling him to run for Congress. . . !r. /ernas1 Correct. 6e are 0uite a&are of that and for that reason &e &ill leave it to the bod( to approve that provision of section A. 'r. Rodrigo1 9 think there is a good basis for the provision because it strikes me as unfair that the !ilipino citi"en &ho &as born a da( before Januar( ),, )*,: cannot be a !ilipino citi"en or a naturalCborn citi"en. (Records of the Constitutional Commission, 8ol. ), p. 4:))

... ... ... 'r. Rodrigo1 The purpose of that provision is to remed( an ine0uitable situation. /et&een )*:> and )*,: &hen &e &ere under the )*:> Constitution, those born of !ilipino fathers but alien mothers &ere naturalCborn !ilipinos. Ho&ever, those born of !ilipino mothers but alien fathers &ould have to elect 2hilippine citi"enship upon reaching the age of ma7orit(3 and if the( do elect, the( become !ilipino citi"ens but not naturalC born !ilipino citi"ens. (Records of the Constitutional Commission, 8ol. ), p. :>5) The foregoing significantl( reveals the intent of the framers. To make the provision prospective from !ebruar( :, )*+, is to give a narro& interpretation resulting in an ine0uitable situation. 9t must also be retroactive. 9t should be noted that in construing the la&, the Courts are not al&a(s to be hedged in b( the literal meaning of its language. The spirit and intendment thereof, must prevail over the letter, especiall( &here adherence to the latter

&ould result in absurdit( and in7ustice. (Casela v. Court of -ppeals, :> %CR- 4,* ;)*,B<) - Constitutional provision should be construed so as to give it effective operation and suppress the mischief at &hich it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision &hich should prevail over the letter thereof. (Jarrolt v. 'abberl(, )B: ?.%. >+B) 9n the &ords of the Court in the case of J.+. Tuason v. LTA (:) %CR- A): ;)*,B<1 To that primordial intent, all else is subordinated. ur Constitution, an( constitution is not to be construed narro&l( or pedanticall( for the prescriptions therein contained, to paraphrase Justice Holmes, are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form but are organic living institutions, the significance of &hich is vital not formal. . . . (p. A4,) The provision in 0uestion &as enacted to correct the anomalous situation &here one born of a !ilipino father and an alien mother &as automaticall( granted the status of a naturalCborn citi"en &hile one born of a !ilipino mother and an alien father &ould still have to elect 2hilippine citi"enship. 9f one so elected, he &as not, under earlier la&s, conferred the status of a naturalCborn. ?nder the )*,: Constitution, those born of !ilipino fathers and those born of !ilipino mothers &ith an alien father &ere placed on e0ual footing. The( &ere both considered as naturalCborn citi"ens. Hence, the besto&ment of the status of =naturalCborn= cannot be made to depend on the fleeting accident of time or result in t&o kinds of citi"ens made up of essentiall( the same similarl( situated members. 9t is for this reason that the amendments &ere enacted, that is, in order to remed( this accidental anomal(, and, therefore, treat

e0uall( all those born before the )*,: Constitution and &ho elected 2hilippine citi"enship either before or after the effectivit( of that Constitution. The Constitutional provision in 0uestion is, therefore curative in nature. The enactment &as meant to correct the ine0uitable and absurd situation &hich then prevailed, and thus, render those acts valid &hich &ould have been nil at the time had it not been for the curative provisions. ("ee Gevelopment /ank of the 2hilippines v. Court of -ppeals, *5 %CR- :A4 ;)*+B<) There is no dispute that the respondentEs mother &as a natural born !ilipina at the time of her marriage. Crucial to this case is the issue of &hether or not the respondent elected or chose to be a !ilipino citi"en. Election becomes material because %ection 4 of -rticle 98 of the Constitution accords natural born status to children born of !ilipino mothers before Januar( ),, )*,:, if the( elect citi"enship upon reaching the age of ma7orit(. To e.pect the respondent to have formall( or in &riting elected citi"enship &hen he came of age is to ask for the unnatural and unnecessar(. The reason is obvious. He &as alread( a citi"en. $ot onl( &as his mother a natural born citi"en but his father had been naturali"ed &hen the respondent &as onl( nine (*) (ears old. He could not have divined &hen he came of age that in )*,: and )*+, the Constitution &ould be amended to re0uire him to have filed a s&orn statement in )*5* electing citi"enship inspite of his alread( having been a citi"en since )*>,. 9n )*5*, election through a s&orn statement &ould have been an unusual and unnecessar( procedure for one &ho had been a citi"en since he &as nine (ears old. 6e have 7urisprudence that defines =election= as both a formal and an informal process. 9n the case of !n %e1 $lorencio +allare (>* %CR- A> ;)*,A<), the Court held that the e.ercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election e.ercises constitute a

positive act of election of 2hilippine citi"enship. 9n the e.act pronouncement of the Court, &e held1 ste*an4s e5ercise of the right of suffrage when he ca6e of age, constitutes a positive act of election of -hilippine citi)enship (p. >43 emphasis supplied) The private respondent did more than merel( e.ercise his right of suffrage. He has established his life here in the 2hilippines. !or those in the peculiar situation of the respondent &ho cannot be e.pected to have elected citi"enship as the( &ere alread( citi"ens, &e appl( the !n %e +allare rule. The respondent &as born in an outl(ing rural to&n of %amar &here there are no alien enclaves and no racial distinctions. The respondent has lived the life of a !ilipino since birth. His father applied for naturali"ation &hen the child &as still a small bo(. He is a Roman Catholic. He has &orked for a sensitive government agenc(. His profession re0uires citi"enship for taking the e.aminations and getting a license. He has participated in political e.ercises as a !ilipino and has al&a(s considered himself a !ilipino citi"en. There is nothing in the records to sho& that he does not embrace 2hilippine customs and values, nothing to indicate an( tinge of alienCness no acts to sho& that this countr( is not his natural homeland. The mass of voters of $orthern %amar are frill( a&are of 'r. ngEs parentage. The( should kno& him better than an( member of this Court &ill ever kno& him. The( voted b( over&helming numbers to have him represent them in Congress. /ecause of his acts since childhood, the( have considered him as a !ilipino. The filing of s&orn statement or formal declaration is a re0uirement for those &ho still have to elect citi"enship. $or those alread. $ilipinos &hen the time to elect came up, there are acts of deliberate choice &hich cannot be less binding. Entering a profession

open onl( to !ilipinos, serving in public office &here citi"enship is a 0ualification, voting during election time, running for public office, and other categorical acts of similar nature are themselves formal manifestations of choice for these persons. -n election of 2hilippine citi"enship presupposes that the person electing is an alien. r his status is doubtful because he is a national of t&o countries. There is no doubt in this case about 'r. ngEs being a !ilipino &hen he turned t&ent(Cone (4)). 6e repeat that an( election of 2hilippine citi"enship on the part of the private respondent &ould not onl( have been superfluous but it &ould also have resulted in an absurdit(. Ho& can a !ilipino citi"en elect 2hilippine citi"enshipD The respondent HRET has an interesting vie& as to ho& 'r. ng elected citi"enship. 9t observed that =&hen protestee &as onl( nine (ears of age, his father, Jose ng Chuan became a naturali"ed !ilipino. %ection )> of the Revised $aturali"ation -ct s0uarel( applies its benefit to him for he &as then a minor residing in this countr(. Concededl(, it was the law itself that had alread. elected -hilippine citi)enship for protestee *. declaring hi6 as such.= (Emphasis supplied) The petitioners argue that the respondentEs father &as not, validl(, a naturali"ed citi"en because of his premature taking of the oath of citi"enship. The Court cannot go into the collateral procedure of stripping 'r. ngEs father of his citi"enship after his death and at this ver( late date 7ust so &e can go after the son. The petitioners 0uestion the citi"enship of the father through a collateral approach. This can not be done. 9n our 7urisdiction, an attack on a personEs citi"enship ma( onl( be done through a direct action for its nullit(. ("ee Iueto v. Catolico, :) %CR- >4 ;)*,B<) To ask the Court to declare the grant of 2hilippine citi"enship to Jose ng Chuan as

null and void &ould run against the principle of due process. Jose ng Chuan has alread( been laid to rest. Ho& can he be given a fair opportunit( to defend himself. - dead man cannot speak. To 0uote the &ords of the HRET = ng ChuanEs lips have long been muted to perpetuit( b( his demise and obviousl( he could not use be(ond &here his mortal remains no& lie to defend himself &ere this matter to be made a central issue in this case.= The issue before us is not the nullification of the grant of citi"enship to Jose ng Chuan. ur function is to determine &hether or not the HRET committed abuse of authorit( in the e.ercise of its po&ers. 'oreover, the respondent traces his natural born citi"enship through his 6other, not through the citi"enship of his father. The citi"enship of the father is relevant onl( to determine &hether or not the respondent =chose= to be a !ilipino &hen he came of age. -t that time and up to the present, both mother and father &ere !ilipinos. Respondent ng could not have elected an. other citi)enship unless he first formall( renounced 2hilippine citi"enship in favor of a foreign nationalit(. ?nlike other persons faced &ith a problem of election, there &as no foreign nationalit( of his father &hich he could possibl( have chosen. There is another reason &h( &e cannot declare the HRET as having committed manifest grave abuse of discretion. The same issue of naturalCborn citi"enship has alread( been decided b( the Constitutional Convention of )*,) and b( the /atasang 2ambansa convened b( authorit( of the Constitution drafted b( that Convention. Emil ng, full blood brother of the respondent, &as declared and accepted as a natural born citi"en b( both bodies. -ssuming that our opinion is different from that of the Constitutional Convention, the /atasang 2ambansa, and the respondent HRET, such a difference could onl( be characteri"ed as error. There &ould be no basis to call the HRET decision so arbitrar( and &himsical as to amount to grave a*use of discretion.

6hat &as the basis for the Constitutional ConventionEs declaring Emil ng a natural born citi"enD ?nder the 2hilippine /ill of )*B4, inhabitants of the 2hilippines &ho &ere %panish sub7ects on the ))th da( of -pril )+** and then residing in said islands and their children born subse0uent thereto &ere conferred the status of a !ilipino citi"en. 6as the grandfather of the private respondent a %panish sub7ectD -rticle ), of the Civil Code of %pain enumerates those &ho &ere considered %panish %ub7ects, vi)1 -RT9C#E ),. The follo&ing are %paniards1 ). 2ersons born in %panish territor(. 4. Children born of a %panish father or mother, even though the( &ere born out of %pain. :. !oreigners &ho ma( have obtained naturali"ation papers. A. Those without such papers, who 6a. have ac(uired do6icile in an. town in the +onarch.. (Emphasis supplied) The domicile of a natural person is the place of his habitual residence. This domicile, once established is considered to continue and &ill not be deemed lost until a ne& one is established. (-rticle >B, $CC3 -rticle AB, Civil Code of %pain3 Juellig v. Republic, +: 2hil. ,5+ ;)*A*<) -s earlier stated, ng Te became a permanent resident of #aoang, %amar around )+*>. Correspondingl(, a certificate of residence &as then issued to him b( virtue of his being a resident of #aoang, %amar. (Report of the Committee on Election 2rotests

and Credentials of the )*,) Constitutional Convention, %eptember ,, )*,4, p. :) The domicile that ng Te established in )+*> continued until -pril )), )+**3 it even &ent be(ond the turn of the )*th centur(. 9t is also in this place &ere ng Te setCup his business and ac0uired his real propert(. -s concluded b( the Constitutional Convention, ng Te falls &ithin the meaning of subCparagraph A of -rticle ), of the Civil Code of %pain. -lthough ng Te made brief visits to China, he, nevertheless, al&a(s returned to the 2hilippines. The fact that he died in China, during one of his visits in said countr(, &as of no moment. This &ill not change the fact that he alread( had his domicile fi.ed in the 2hilippines and pursuant to the Civil Code of %pain, he had become a %panish sub7ect. 9f ng Te became a %panish sub7ect b( virtue of having established his domicile in a to&n under the 'onarch( of %pain, necessaril(, ng Te &as also an inhabitant of the 2hilippines for an inhabitant has been defined as one &ho has actual fi.ed residence in a place3 one &ho has a domicile in a place. (/ouvierEs #a& Gictionar(, 8ol. 99) - priori, there can be no other logical conclusion but to educe that ng Te 0ualified as a !ilipino citi"en under the provisions of section A of the 2hilippine /ill of )*B4. The HRET itself found this fact of absolute verit( in concluding that the private respondent &as a naturalCborn !ilipino. The petitionersE sole ground in disputing this fact is that document presented to prove it &ere not in compliance &ith the best the evidence rule. The petitioners allege that the private respondent failed to present the original of the documentar( evidence, testimonial evidence and of the transcript of the proceedings of the bod( &hich the aforesaid resolution of the )*,) Constitutional Convention &as predicated.

n the contrar(, the documents presented b( the private respondent fall under the e.ceptions to the best evidence rule. 9t &as established in the proceedings before the HRET that the originals of the Committee Report $o. )4, the minutes of the plenar( session of )*,) Constitutional Convention held on $ovember 4+, )*,4 cannot be found. This &as affirmed b( -tt(. Ricafrente, -ssistant %ecretar( of the )*,) Constitutional Convention3 b( -tt(. $olledo, Gelegate to the )*,) Constitutional Convention3 and b( -tt(. -ntonio %antos, Chief #ibrarian of the ?.2 #a& Center, in their respective testimonies given before the HRET to the effect that there is no governmental agenc( &hich is the official custodian of the records of the )*,) Constitutional Convention. (T%$, Gecember )4, )*++, pp. :BC:)3 T%$, Januar( ),, )*+*, pp. :AC:>3 T%$, !ebruar( ), )*+*, p. AA3 T%$, !ebruar( 5, )*+*, pp. 4+C4*) The e.ecution of the originals &as established b( -tt(. Ricafrente, &ho as the -ssistant %ecretar( of the )*,) Constitutional Convention &as the proper part( to testif( to such e.ecution. (T%$, Gecember )4, )*+*, pp. ))C4A) The inabilit( to produce the originals before the HRET &as also testified to as aforestated b( -tt(. Ricafrente, -tt(. $olledo, and -tt(. %antos. 9n proving the inabilit( to produce, the la& does not re0uire the degree of proof to be of sufficient certaint(3 it is enough that it be sho&n that after a bona fide diligent search, the same cannot be found. (see Fovernment of 2.9. v. 'artine", AA 2hil. +), ;)*)+<) %ince the e.ecution of the document and the inabilit( to produce &ere ade0uatel( established, the contents of the 0uestioned documents can be proven b( a cop( thereof or b( the recollection of &itnesses. 'oreover, to erase all doubts as to the authenticit( of the documentar( evidence cited in the Committee Report, the former member of the )*,) Constitutional Convention, -tt(. $olledo, &hen he &as

presented as a &itness in the hearing of the protest against the private respondent, categoricall( stated that he sa& the disputed documents presented during the hearing of the election protest against the brother of the private respondent. (T%$, !ebruar( ), )*+*, pp. +C*) 9n his concurring opinion, 'r. Justice %armiento, a viceCpresident of the Constitutional Convention, states that he &as presiding officer of the plenar( session &hich deliberated on the report on the election protest against Gelegate Emil ng. He cites a long list of names of delegates present. -mong them are 'r. Chief Justice !ernan, and 'r. Justice Gavide, Jr. The petitioners could have presented an( one of the long list of delegates to refute 'r. ngEs having been declared a naturalCborn citi"en. The( did not do so. $or did the( demur to the contents of the documents presented b( the private respondent. The( merel( relied on the procedural ob7ections respecting the admissibilit( of the evidence presented. The Constitutional Convention &as the sole 'udge of the 0ualifications of Emil ng to be a member of that bod(. The HRET b( e.plicit mandate of the Constitution, is the sole 'udge of the 0ualifications of Jose ng, Jr. to be a member of Congress. /oth bodies deliberated at length on the controversies over &hich the( &ere sole 'udges. Gecisions &ere arrived at onl( after a full presentation of all relevant factors &hich the parties &ished to present. Even assuming that &e disagree &ith their conclusions, &e cannot declare their acts as committed &ith grave abuse of discretion. 6e have to keep clear the line bet&een error and grave a*use. ON TH !""# O$ % "!& NC The petitioners 0uestion the 0ualification of respondent ng. residence

The petitioners lose sight of the meaning of =residence= under the Constitution. The term =residence= has been understood as s(non(mous &ith do6icile not onl( under the

previous Constitutions but also under the )*+, Constitution. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission reveal that the meaning of residence vis7a7vis the 0ualifications of a candidate for Congress continues to remain the same as that of domicile, to &it1 'r. $olledo1 6ith respect to %ection >, 9 remember that in the )*,) Constitutional Convention, there &as an attempt to re0uire residence in the place not less than one (ear immediatel( preceding the da( of the elections. %o m( 0uestion is1 6hat is the CommitteeEs concept of residence of a candidate for the legislatureD 9s it actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residenceD 'r. Gavide1 'adame 2resident, in so far as the regular members of the $ational -ssembl( are concerned, the proposed section merel( provides,

among others, and a resident thereof, that is, in the district, for a period of not less than one (ear preceding the da( of the election. This &as in effect lifted from the )*,: Constitution, the interpretation given to it &as domicile. (Records of the )*+, Constitutional Convention, 8ol. )), Jul( 44, )*+5. p. +,) ... ... ... 'rs. Rosario /raid1 The ne.t 0uestion is on %ection ,, page 4. 9 think Commissioner $olledo has raised the same point that =resident= has been interpreted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence. 'r. Ge Re(es1 Gomicile. los

's. Rosario /raid1 @es, %o,

&ould the gentlemen consider at the proper time to go back to actual residence rather than mere intention to resideD 'r. Ge los Re(es1 /ut &e might encounter some difficult( especiall( considering that a provision in the Constitution in the -rticle on %uffrage sa(s that !ilipinos living abroad ma( vote as enacted b( la&. %o, &e have to stick to the original concept that it should be b( domicile and not ph(sical and actual residence. (Records of the )*+, Constitutional Commission, 8ol. )), Jul( 44, )*+5, p. ))B) The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier definition given to the &ord =residence= &hich regarded it as having the same meaning as domicile. The term =domicile= denotes a fi.ed permanent residence to &hich &hen absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return. ( ng Huan Tin v. Republic, )* %CR-

*55 ;)*5,<) The absence of a person from said permanent residence, no matter ho& long, not&ithstanding, it continues to be the domicile of that person. 9n other &ords, domicile is characteri"ed b( ani6us revertendi (?7ano v. Republic, ), %CR- )A, ;)*55<) The domicile of origin of the private respondent, &hich &as the domicile of his parents, is fi.ed at #aoang, %amar. Contrar( to the petitionersE imputation, Jose ng, Jr. never abandoned said domicile3 it remained fi.ed therein even up to the present. The private respondent, in the proceedings before the HRET sufficientl( established that after the fire that gutted their house in )*5), another one &as constructed. #ike&ise, after the second fire &hich again destro(ed their house in )*,>, a si.teenCdoor apartment &as built b( their famil(, t&o doors of &hich &ere reserved as their famil( residence. (T%$, Jose ng, Jr., $ovember )+,)*++, p. +) The petitionersE allegation that since the private respondent o&ns no propert( in #aoang, %amar, he cannot, therefore, be a resident of said place is misplaced. The properties o&ned b( the ng !amil( are in the name of the private respondentEs parents. ?pon the demise of his parents, necessaril(, the private respondent, pursuant to the la&s of succession, became the coC o&ner thereof (as a coC heir), not&ithstanding the fact that these &ere still in the names of his parents. Even assuming that the private respondent does not o&n an( propert( in %amar, the %upreme Court in the case of &e los %e.es v. "olidu6 (5) 2hil. +*: ;)*:><) held that it is not re0uired that a person should have a house in order to establish his residence and domicile. !t is enough that he should live in the 6unicipalit. or in a rented house or in that of a friend or relative. (Emphasis supplied)

To re0uire the private respondent to o&n propert( in order to be eligible to run for Congress &ould be tantamount to a propert( 0ualification. The Constitution onl( re0uires that the candidate meet the age, citi"enship, voting and residence re0uirements. $o&here is it re0uired b( the Constitution that the candidate should also o&n propert( in order to be 0ualified to run. (see 'a0uera v. /orra, )44 2hil. A)4 ;)*5><) 9t has also been settled that absence from residence to pursue studies or practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place &here one is elected, does not constitute loss of residence. (!a(pon v. Iuirino, *5 2hil. 4*A ;)*>A<) -s previousl( stated, the private respondent sta(ed in 'anila for the purpose of finishing his studies and later to practice his profession, There &as no intention to abandon the residence in #aoang, %amar. n the contrar(, the periodical 7ourne(s made to his home province reveal that he al&a(s had the ani6us revertendi. The 2hilippines is made up not onl( of a single race3 it has, rather, undergone an interracial evolution. Throughout our histor(, there has been a continuing influ. of 'ala(s, Chinese, -mericans, Japanese, %paniards and other nationalities. This racial diversit( gives strength to our countr(. 'an( great !ilipinos have not been &holeC blooded nationals, if there is such a person, for there is none. To mention a fe&, the great Jose Ri"al &as part Chinese, the late Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee &as part Chinese, and of course our o&n 2resident, Cora"on -0uino is also part Chinese. 8eril(, some !ilipinos of &hom &e are proud &ere ethnicall( more Chinese than the private respondent. ur citi"ens no doubt constitute the countr(Es greatest &ealth. Citi"enship is a special privilege &hich one must forever cherish. Ho&ever, in order to trul( revere this treasure of citi"enship, &e do not, on the basis of too

harsh an interpretation, have to unreasonabl( den( it to those &ho 0ualif( to share in its richness. ?nder the overl( strict 7urisprudence surrounding our anti0uated naturali"ation la&s onl( the ver( affluent backed b( influential patrons, &ho &ere &illing to suffer the indignities of a length(, sometimes humiliating, and often corrupt process of clearances b( minor bureaucrats and &hose la&(ers kne& ho& to overcome so man( technical traps of the 7udicial process &ere able to ac0uire citi"enship. 9t is time for the naturali"ation la& to be revised to enable a more positive, affirmative, and meaningful e.amination of an applicantEs suitabilit( to be a !ilipino. - more humane, more indubitable and less technical approach to citi"enship problems is essential. 6HERE! RE, the petitions are hereb( G9%'9%%EG. The 0uestioned decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal is -!!9R'EG. Respondent Jose ng, Jr. is declared a naturalCborn citi"en of the 2hilippines and a resident of #aoang, $orthern %amar. % RGEREG.

Bidin, 8ri9o7A(uino, +edialdea and &avide, Jr., JJ., concur. $ernan, C.J., +elencio7Herrera, Cru), $eliciano and 8anca.co, JJ., too: no part. G.R. No. &3&20 '(y 2), 1990 JOSE B. A%NAR *(s +o,-./-(l C0(-+1(. o2 " L(3(. -. C43u5, petitioner, vs. CO''ISSION ON ELECTIONS (.6 E'ILIO 'ARIO RENNER OS'E7A, respondents. %ufino B. %e(uina for petitioner. Angara, A*ello, Concepcion, %egala & Cru) for private respondent.

ARAS, J.: /efore ?s is a petition for certiorari assailing the Resolution of the Commission on Elections (C 'E#EC) dated June )), )*++, &hich dismissed the petition for the dis0ualification of private respondent Emilio =#ito= smeKa as candidate for 2rovincial Fovernor of Cebu 2rovince. The facts of the case are briefl( as follo&s1 n $ovember )*, )*+,, private respondent Emilio =#ito= smeKa filed his certificate of candidac( &ith the C 'E#EC for the position of 2rovincial Fovernor of Cebu 2rovince in the Januar( )+, )*++ local elections. n Januar( 44, )*++, the Cebu 2G2C#aban 2rovincial Council (CebuC2G2 #aban, for short), as represented b( petitioner Jose /. -"nar in his capacit( as its incumbent 2rovincial Chairman, filed &ith the C 'E#EC a petition for the dis0ualification of private respondent on the ground that he is allegedl( not a !ilipino citi"en, being a citi"en of the ?nited %tates of -merica. n Januar( 4,, )*++, petitioner filed a !ormal 'anifestation submitting a Certificate issued b( the then 9mmigration and Geportation Commissioner 'iriam Gefensor %antiago certif(ing that private respondent is an -merican and is a holder of -lien Certificate of Registration (-CR) $o. /C4)AA+ and 9mmigrant Certificate of Residence (9CR) $o. )::*)), issued at 'anila on 'arch 4, and 4+, )*>+, respectivel(. (-nne. =/C)=). The petitioner also filed a %upplemental ?rgent 57-arte 'otion for the 9ssuance of a Temporar( Restraining rder to temporaril( en7oin the Cebu 2rovincial /oard of Canvassers from tabulatingLcanvassing the votes cast in favor of private respondent and proclaiming him until the final resolution of the main petition. Thus, on Januar( 4+, )*++, the C 'E#EC en *anc resolved to order the /oard to continue canvassing but to suspend the proclamation.

-t the hearing before the C 'E#EC (!irst Givision), the petitioner presented the follo&ing e.hibits tending to sho& that private respondent is an -merican citi"en1 -pplication for -lien Registration !orm $o. ) of the /ureau of 9mmigration signed b( private respondent dated $ovember 4), )*,* (E.h. =/=)3 -lien Certificate of Registration $o. B)>:>5 in the name of private respondent dated $ovember 4), )*,* (E.h. =C=)3 2ermit to ReCenter the 2hilippines dated $ovember 4), )*,* (E.h. =G=)3 9mmigration Certificate of Clearance dated Januar( :, )*+B (E.h. =E=). (pp. )),C))+, Rollo) 2rivate respondent, on the other hand, maintained that he is a !ilipino citi"en, alleging1 that he is the legitimate child of Gr. Emilio G. smeKa, a !ilipino and son of the late 2resident %ergio smeKa, %r.3 that he is a holder of a valid and subsisting 2hilippine 2assport $o. B+>>)B: issued on 'arch 4>, )*+,3 that he has been continuousl( residing in the 2hilippines since birth and has not gone out of the countr( for more than si. months3 and that he has been a registered voter in the 2hilippines since )*5>. (pp. )B,C)B+, Rollo) n 'arch :, )*++, C 'E#EC (!irst Givision) directed the /oard of Canvassers to proclaim the &inning candidates. Having obtained the highest number of votes, private respondent &as proclaimed the 2rovincial Fovernor of Cebu. Thereafter, on June )), )*++, C 'E#EC (!irst Givision) dismissed the petition for dis0ualification for not having been timel( filed and for lack of sufficient proof that private respondent is not a !ilipino citi"en. Hence, the present petition. The petition is not meritorious. There are t&o instances &here a petition 0uestioning the 0ualifications of a registered candidate to run for the office for &hich his certificate of candidac( &as filed can be raised under the mnibus Election Code (/.2. /lg. ++)), to &it1

()) Before election, pursuant to %ection ,+ thereof &hich provides that1 E%ection ,+. -etition to den. due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac.. H verified petition seeking to den( due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac( ma( be filed b( an( person e.clusivel( on the ground that an( material representation contained therein as re0uired under %ection ,A hereof is false. The petition ma( be filed at an. ti6e not later than twent.7five da.s fro6 the ti6e of the filing of the certificate of candidac( and shall be decided, after the notice and hearing, not later than fifteen da(s before the election. and (4) After election, pursuant to %ection 4>: thereof, vi"1 E%ec. 4>:. -etition for (uo warranto. ; An. voter contesting the election of an( 'ember of the /atasang 2ambansa, regional, provincial, or cit( officer on the ground of ineligibilit( or of dislo(alt( to the Republic of the 2hilippines shall file a s&orn petition for (uo warranto &ith the Commission within ten da.s after the procla6ation of the results of the election. The records sho& that private respondent filed his certificate of candidac( on $ovember )*, )*+, and that the petitioner filed its petition for dis0ualification of said private respondent on Januar( 44, )*++. %ince the petition for dis0ualification &as filed be(ond the t&ent( fiveCda( period re0uired in %ection

,+ of the mnibus Election Code, it is clear that said petition &as filed out of time. The petition for the dis0ualification of private respondent cannot also be treated as a petition for (uo warranto under %ection 4>: of the same Code as it is un0uestionabl( premature, considering that private respondent &as proclaimed 2rovincial Fovernor of Cebu onl( on 'arch :, )*++. Ho&ever, 6e deem it is a matter of public interest to ascertain the respondentEs citi"enship and 0ualification to hold the public office to &hich he has been proclaimed elected. There is enough basis for us to rule directl( on the merits of the case, as the C 'E#EC did belo&. 2etitionerEs contention that private respondent is not a !ilipino citi"en and, therefore, dis0ualified from running for and being elected to the office of 2rovincial Fovernor of Cebu, is not supported b( substantial and convincing evidence. 9n the proceedings before the C 'E#EC, the petitioner failed to present direct proof that private respondent had lost his !ilipino citi"enship b( an( of the modes provided for under C.-. $o. 5:. -mong others, these are1 ()) b( naturali"ation in a foreign countr(3 (4) b( e.press renunciation of citi"enship3 and (:) b( subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or la&s of a foreign countr(. !rom the evidence, it is clear that private respondent smeKa did not lose his 2hilippine citi"enship b( an( of the three mentioned hereinabove or b( an( other mode of losing 2hilippine citi"enship. 9n concluding that private respondent had been naturali"ed as a citi"en of the ?nited %tates of -merica, the petitioner merel( relied on the fact that private respondent &as issued alien certificate of registration and &as given clearance and permit to reCenter the 2hilippines b( the Commission on 9mmigration and Geportation. 2etitioner assumed that because of the foregoing, the respondent is an -merican and =being an -merican=, private respondent =must have taken and s&orn to

the ath of -llegiance re0uired b( the ?.%. $aturali"ation #a&s.= (p. +), Rollo) 2hilippine courts are onl( allo&ed to determine &ho are !ilipino citi"ens and &ho are not. 6hether or not a person is considered an -merican under the la&s of the ?nited %tates does not concern ?s here. /( virtue of his being the son of a !ilipino father, the presumption that private respondent is a !ilipino remains. 9t &as incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that private respondent had lost his 2hilippine citi"enship. -s earlier stated, ho&ever, the petitioner failed to positivel( establish this fact. The cases of Juan 8allanosa $rivaldo v. CO+ L C et al, (F.R. $o. +,)*:, June 4), )*+*) and %a6on L. La*o v. CO+ L C et al (F.R. $o. +5>5A, -ugust ), )*+*) are not applicable to the case at bar. 9n the $rivaldo case, evidence sho&s that he &as naturali"ed as a citi"en of the ?nited %tates in )*+: per certification from the ?nited %tates Gistrict Court, $orthern Gistrict of California, as dul( authenticated b( 8ice Consul -mado 2. Corte" of the 2hilippine Consulate Feneral in %an !rancisco, California, ?.%.-. !rivaldo e.pressl( admitted in his ans&er that he &as naturali"ed in the ?nited %tates but claimed that he &as forced to embrace -merican citi"enship to protect himself from the persecution of the 'arcos government. The Court, ho&ever, found this suggestion of involuntariness unacceptable, pointing out that there &ere man( other !ilipinos in the ?nited %tates similarl( situated as !rivaldo &ho did not find it necessar( to abandon their status as !ilipinos. #ike&ise, in the case of #abo, records sho& that #abo &as married to an -ustralian citi"en and that he &as naturali"ed as an -ustralian citi"en in )*,5, per certification from the -ustralian Fovernment through its Consul in the 2hilippines. This &as later affirmed b( the Gepartment of !oreign -ffairs.

The authenticit( of the above evidence &as not disputed b( #abo. 9n fact, in a number of s&orn statements, #abo categoricall( declared that he &as a citi"en of -ustralia. 9n declaring both !rivaldo and #abo not citi"ens of the 2hilippines, therefore, dis0ualified from serving as Fovernor of the 2rovince of %orsogon and 'a(or of /aguio Cit(, respectivel(, the Court considered the fact that b( their o&n admissions, the( are indubitabl( aliens, no longer o&ing an( allegiance to the Republic of the 2hilippines since the( have s&orn their total allegiance to a foreign state. 9n the instant case, private respondent vehementl( denies having taken the oath of allegiance of the ?nited %tates (p. +), Rollo). He is a holder of a valid and subsisting 2hilippine passport and has continuousl( participated in the electoral process in this countr( since )*5: up to the present, both as a voter and as a candidate (pp. )B,C)B+, Rollo). Thus, private respondent remains a !ilipino and the loss of his 2hilippine citi"enship cannot be presumed. 9n the learned dissent of 'r. Justice Teodoro 2adilla, he stresses the fact that because smeKa obtained Certificates of -lien Registration as an -merican citi"en, the first in )*>+ &hen he &as 4A (ears old and the second in )*,*, he, smeKa should be regarded as having e.pressl( renounced 2hilippine citi"enship. To ur mind, this is a case of non se(uitur (9t does not follo&). Considering the fact that admittedl( smeKa &as both a !ilipino and an -merican, the mere fact that he has a Certificate stating he is an -merican does not mean that he is not still a !ilipino. Thus, b( &a( of analog(, if a person &ho has t&o brothers named Jose and 'ario states or certifies that he has a brother named Jose, this does not mean that he does not have a brother named 'ario3 or if a person is enrolled as student simultaneousl( in t&o universities, namel( ?niversit( M and ?niversit( @, presents a Certification that he is a student of ?niversit( M, this does not necessaril( mean that he is not still a student of ?niversit( @. 9n the case of smeKa, the Certification that he is an -merican does not

mean that he is not still a !ilipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citi"enships. 9ndeed, there is no e.press renunciation here of 2hilippine citi"enship3 truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said citi"enship. 6hen 6e consider that the renunciation needed to lose 2hilippine citi"enship must be =e.press=, it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of 2hilippine Eciti"enship when there is no renunciation either <4e5press< or <i6plied<. 2arentheticall(, the statement in the )*+, Constitution that =dual allegiance of citi"ens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt &ith b( la&=(-rt. 98, %ec. >) has no retroactive effect. -nd &hile it is true that even before the )*+, Constitution, ur countr( had alread( fro&ned upon the concept of dual citi"enship or allegiance, the fact is it actuall( e.isted. /e it noted further that under the aforecited proviso, the effect of such dual citi"enship or allegiance shall be dealt &ith b( a future la&. %aid la& has not (et been enacted. 6HERE! RE, the petition for certiorari is hereb( G9%'9%%EG and the Resolution of the C 'E#EC is hereb( -!!9R'EG. % RGEREG.

YU 9IAN CHIE, petitionerCappellee, vs. RE UBLIC OF THE HILI INES, oppositorC appellant. %. L. %a*a.on for petitioner7appellee. Office of the "olicitor 8eneral for oppositor7 appellant. ARE"ES, J.: @u Nian Chie, a citi"en of the Republic of China, presented &ith the C!9 of 'anila, on !ebruar( A, )*5B, a petition for naturali"ation, containing all the 7urisdictional re0uirements, the pertinent portion of &hich is hereb( reproduced1 TH9RG.H '( trade or profession is that of an emplo(ee in &hich 9 have been engaged since )*>, and from &hich 9 derive an average annual income of 2:,BBB.BB. -ttached to the petition &ere affidavits of 'arcelo de la Cru" and !ederico F. %antos, &ho acted as character &itnesses3 Geclaration of 9ntention and Certificate of -rrival. -fter the trial, the ffice of the %olicitor Feneral on ctober A, )*5), filed an = pposition= claiming that the t&o &itnesses of petitioner are not credible and did not testif( as to petitionerEs good reputation and moral irreproachabilit(. n Gecember )+, )*5), the lo&er court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of &hich states1 ... ... ...

Narvasa, Bidin, 8ri9o7A(uino, +edialdea and %egalado, JJ., concur. $eliciano, J., ! concur. ! also 'oin in the concurring opinion of Justice "ar6iento. Cortes, J., concur in the result. $ernan, C.J., too: no part. 8anca.co, J., is on leave.

G.R. No. L-20189

F43+u(+y 28, 198)

9n vie& of the foregoing, this Court finds that petitioner has all the 0ualifications re0uired b(, and none of the dis0ualifications specified in, Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, as amended b( Common&ealth -ct $o. >:>, and has complied &ith all the re0uisites established therein.. 6HERE! RE, the said petition of @u Nian Chie to be admitted a citi"en of the 2hilippines is hereb( granted, and

IN THE 'ATTER OF THE ETITION OF YU 9IAN CHIE TO BE A"'ITTE" A CITI%EN OF THE HILI INES.

let the proper naturali"ation certificate be issued in his favor and the registration thereof in the proper civil registr(, this decision to become e.ecutor( in accordance &ith the provisions of %ection ) of Republic -ct $o. >:. -fter the %olicitor Feneral has perfected his appeal from the above 7udgment, but during the pendenc( of the approval of the record on appeal, petitionerCappellee herein presented &ith the lo&er court a ='otion to Reopen Case to Enable 2etitioner to present -dditional Gocumentar( 2roof of his 9ncome,= claiming that his income has risen from 2:,BBB.BB in )*>,, to 2>,)BB.BB in )*5B and 2>,4BB.BB in )*5). The increase in the income had been due to a little increase in the salar(, plus, the bonuses of 2)BB.BB in )*5B and 2),BBB.BB in )*5). The motion &as heard, and on Jul( )+, )*54, the court a (uo rendered a =%upplemental Gecision.= /oth the original and the supplemental decisions are the sub7ects of the instant appeal, the %olicitor Feneral urging a reversal thereof on a singular assignment of error, allegedl( committed b( the court a (uo, to &it1 in not finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he has a lucrative income. There seem to be no 0uestion regarding the fact that there has been an increase in the income of petitioner, from the time he presented his petition, to the rendition of the %upplemental Gecision. 9n )*5) also, there has been a change in the status of petitioner, from single to married. Even granting, for purposes of argument, that the figures appearing in the documentar( evidence submitted are correct, although 6e entertain serious doubts regarding their veracit( H a point &hich 6e &ill discuss later H the overriding issue &ould be, the same lucrative income. -s a starter on this point, 6e 0uote a portion of the argument of counsel for petitionerCappellee, &hich states1 ... . He received a uniform living allo&ance of 2)>B.BB a month, aside from the (earl( bonus &hich the compan( gives him, depending of course, on the profit &hich said

compan( reali"es ever( (ear from its business. (p. :, brief.) -nd the living allo&ance is given regularl( from the time the petitioner started &orking &ith the Republic Hard&are in )*>* up to the present. 9n other &ords, it (living allo&ance) has assumed its regularit( as a part of the salar( in consideration of the services rendered b( the petitioner. ... The aboveC0uoted portion of the arguments of petitionerEs counsel is a clear indication that as far as salar( is concerned, his client, appellee herein, &as onl( receiving 2)>B.BB, the rest being in the form of allo&ances and bonuses &hich ma( or ma( not be given to appellee. 9n other &ords, petitionerEs emplo(er &as not dut( bound to give such allo&ances and bonuses, but must spring from purel( voluntar( actuations, conditioned to the circumstance that the emplo(er &as making profits. 6hen there are no profits, the allo&ances and the bonuses are not given. 9t is not, therefore, safe to consider that the income of petitioner is 2:,BBB.BB (earl(, or more. 9nsofar as the evidence is concerned, it becomes indisputable that petitionerEs true income is onl( 2)>B.BB, an( additional thereof being purel( contingent, accidental or incidental, &hich amount does not come up to the categor( of a lucrative income, considering that the petitioner is no& a married man./=wph>/.9?t !urthermore, 6e are not convinced that petitionerEs emplo(ee could be that generous to him. 9t &ill be noted that the Republic Hard&are did not present its books to sho& that it &as making a good profit, as to enable it to give such big allo&ance and bonus to appellee, and considering that the raise in salar( &as given during the pendenc( of his naturali"ation case. /ut even granting, for purpose of argument, that petitioner started to receive a fi.ed salar( of 2ABB.BB a month in )*54, still this amount cannot be considered lucrative in the face of the fact that in )*5) he got married, as

pointed out in his 9ncome Ta. Return for )*5) (E.h. 2CA). 2RE'9%E% C $%9GEREG, the decision appealed from, should be, as it is hereb( reversed and another entered den(ing @u Nian ChieEs petition for 2hilippine citi"enship. Costs against petitionerCappellee. Beng)on, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, %e.es, J.B.L., Barrera, &i)on, %egala, +a:alintal, Beng)on, J.-., and ,aldivar, JJ., concur. EN BANC

:G.R. No. L-2);11. O/<o34+ 28, 198&.= HON. 'ARTINIANO . !I!O, (s *A/<-.>5 Co11-ss-o.4+ o2 I11->+(<-o., Petitioner, ,. HON. GAU"ENCIO CLORIBEL, (s Ju6>4 o2 <04 Cou+< o2 F-+s< I.s<(./4 o2 '(.-l(, B+(./0 !I, CHUA IC LUAN, UY 9OC SIONG (.6 UY TIAN SIONG, Respondents. Jos4 S. %(2+( (.6 To1(s B. To++42+(./( 2o+ Respondents. Ass-s<(.< Sol-/-<o+ G4.4+(l Bo++o14o (.6 Sol-/-<o+ . Petitioner. SYLLABUS ). 2 #9T9C-# #-63 -#9E$%3 TE'2 R-R@ -#9E$ 89%9T R%3 C-/9$ET %ECRET-R9E% H-8E $ 2 6ER T EMTE$G THE9R %T-@ R CH-$FE THE9R %T-T?%. H 9n #im Chiok, Et. -l. v. 8ivo, #C4B>):, 45 Gecember )*5:, this Court held that the %ecretaries of !oreign -ffairs and of Justice could not legall( e.tend the sta( of temporar( visitors because under the e.press provisions of the 9mmigration #a&, it is the Commissioner of 9mmigration &ho is vested &ith the po&er and authorit( to grant such e.tensions. $either can the t&o %ecretaries authori"e the change of status from temporar( visitors to special nonCimmigrants. 4. 9G.3 9G.3 9G.3 9G.3 %-9G %ECRET-R9E% 9$ Is-6+o C. (+6o 2o+

9$%T-$T C-%E -CTEG $ T -% -#TER EF % ! THE 2RE%9GE$T. H That the Cabinet %ecretaries acted as alter egos of the 2resident, as no& claimed b( the respondents, is not true3 because the 2resident, &hen a re0uest for e.tension &as made directl( to him, did not affirm the acts of the %ecretaries but referred the matter to the Commissioner. The respondents kne& that said %ecretaries did not act as alter egos of the 2resident3 other&ise, the( &ould not have &ritten the 2resident after the( received the %ecretariesO indorsements. -nd &hen the 9mmigration Commissioner insisted upon private respondents departing from the 9slands, the( did not dare ask the 2resident for relief. :. 9G.3 9G.3 REI?9%9TE ! F G ' R-# CH-R-CTER ?$GER $-T?R-#9J-T9 $ -CT3 '9%RE2RE%E$T-T9 $ /E! RE C $%?#-R -?TH R9T9E% GE!E-T% C#-9' ! F G ' R-# CH-R-CTER. H /( having misrepresented before 2hilippine consular and administrative authorities that she came to the countr( for onl( a temporar( visit &hen, in fact, her intention &as to sta( permanentl(3 and for having intentionall( dela(ed court processes the better to prolong her sta( respondent Chua 2ic #uan demonstrated her incapacit( to satisf( the 0ualifications e.acted b( the third paragraph of %ection 4 of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, that she must be of good moral character and must have conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the 2hilippines in her relation &ith the constituted government. A. 9G.3 9G.3 !-'9#@ R9FHT% -$G G?T9E% ! -#9E$%3 2ER% $-# #-6, $ T THE 2H9#9229$E C989# C GE F 8ER$%. H The arguments that t&oC(ear old respondent ?( Tian %iong cannot under -rticle :5: of the Civil Code be separated from his mother3 that husband ?( 2ick Tu( has the right to fi. the residence of the famil(, to the compan( of his &ife and those of his minor children and said &ife and children are obliged to obe( and live &ith him3 and that to make said &ife and children depart from the 2hilippines is destructive of famil( solidarit( are beside the

point. %aid la&s govern the relations bet&een husband and &ife inter se or bet&een private persons, not the relations bet&een visiting aliens and the sovereign hostCcountr(. /eing still aliens, the( are not in a position to invoke the provisions of the Civil Code of the 2hilippines for that Code cleaves to the principle that famil( rights and duties are governed b( their personal la&, i.e., the la&s of the nation to &hich the( belong even sta(ing in a foreign countr(. >. 9G.3 9G.3 8ER%T-@9$F -#9E$%3 RE%2 $GE$T J?GFE -/?%EG H9% G9%CRET9 $ 9$ E$J 9$9$F THE9R GE2 RT-T9 $. H The date insisted upon b( the Commissioner as the terminal date of sta( of the respondents ()5 June )*54) had alread( passed &hen respondent 7udge issued his &rit of preliminar( in7unction (4A Jul( )*54). This fact should have cautioned him to issue notice to the 9mmigration Commissioner and hold a hearing before issuing the &rit. /ut respondent 7udge never did hold a hearing, either on the preliminar( in7unction or on the merits, so that it is mild to sa( that his e.Cparte preliminar( in7unction &as improvidentl( issued. 5. RE'EG9-# #-63 2R CEG?RE3 ' T9 $ T G9%'9%%3 GE$9-# ! ' T9 $ -!TER C-%E H-G /EC 'E ' T -$G -C-GE'9C 9% 6H9'%9C-#. H The date insisted on b( the respondents as their terminal date of sta( ()) -pril )*5:) had, like&ise, long e.pired &hen the Commissioner filed his motion to dismiss ()A %eptember )*5>) in the court belo&. 2lainl(, the case had b( then become moot and academic, and the court &as left &ith no further controvers( to ad7udicate. Hence, the respondent 7udge &himsicall( and arbitraril( denied the motion, in open disregard of the public interest and of the national polic( e.pressed in the 9mmigration -ct. "ECISION REYES, J.B.L., J.?

This is another case involving Chinese nationals &ho came to the 2hilippines allegedl( for a visit but thereafter refuse to leave. -nd one &here the improvident issuance of an e.Cparte preliminar( in7unction, follo&ed b( 7udicial inaction, actuall( e.tended the sta( of aliens be(ond the period authori"ed b( la&, and even be(ond &hat the visitors had asked for. The private respondents herein, Chua 2ic #uan, a Chinese mother, and her minor children, ?( Noc %iong and ?( Tian %iong, arrived from Hongkong and &ere admitted in the 2hilippines as temporar( visitors on )5 ctober )*5B, &ith an initial authori"ed sta( of three (:) months. The husband and father of these aliens, ?( 2ick Tu(, had applied for naturali"ation, and the Court of !irst 9nstance of 'anila (in its Civil Case $o. A:)5:) granted his petition therefor onl( on )) -pril )*5). 'ean&hile, said temporar( visitors petitioned for an indefinite e.tension of their sta(. -cting thereon, and purportedl( in accordance &ith a Cabinet Resolution on 4* !ebruar( )*>5 granting them concurrent 7urisdiction to act on petitions for e.tension of sta( of temporar( visitors, the %ecretar( of !oreign -ffairs, !eli.berto %errano, on )5 'a( )*5), authori"ed the change in categor( from temporar( visitors to that of special nonC immigrants under %ection A,(a) (4) of the 9mmigration #a& for a period of sta( e.tending up to )) -pril )*5:3 and the %ecretar( of Justice, -le7o 'abanag, on + June )*5), approved the e.tension thus authori"ed, sub7ect to the condition that Chua 2ic #uan, ?( Noc %iong, and ?( Tian %iong shall secure reentr( permits to Hongkong valid at least t&o months over and be(ond their e.tended sta(, and that the( shall maintain their cash bonds filed &ith the /ureau of 9mmigration and to pa( the corresponding fees. /ut the herein petitioner, Commissioner of 9mmigration, refused to recogni"e the said e.tension further than )5 June )*54, and denied acceptance of pa(ment of the e.tension fees. Thereupon, the respondents, on A June )*54, re0uested the ffice of the 2resident of the 2hilippines to e.tend their sta( up to )) -pril )*5: in order to coincide &ith their hoped H for and forthcoming oathCtaking of allegiance

of ?( 2ick Tu(. The re0uest &as referred to the 9mmigration Commissioner. The latter, on )) June )*54, informed the respondents, through counsel, that the ne& %ecretar( of Justice, Jose Giokno, had ruled in Januar(, )*54 that the Cabinet Resolution of 4* !ebruar( )*>5 had no force and effect, and forth&ith denied the re0uest for e.tension of sta( of the respondents and advised them to leave the countr( voluntaril( not later than )5 June )*543 other&ise, the( &ould be proceeded against, in accordance &ith la&. The respondents did not leave the countr( on the date specified, but instead filed a petition for mandamus &ith in7unction, docketed as Civil Case $o. >B5,) in the Court of !irst 9nstance of 'anila, to restrain the Commissioner of 9mmigration from issuing a &arrant for their arrest and from confiscating their bond for their temporar( sta( and to order the Commissioner to implement the e.tension previousl( authori"ed and approved b( %ecretaries %errano and 'abanag. His Honor, Judge !ederico -likpala, to &hose sala the case &as assigned, denied the pra(er for preliminar( in7unction for lack of a prima facie sho&ing and set the case for hearing on ): Jul( )*54. n the said date, &hich &as preCselected &ith the conformit( of petitionerOs counsel, said counsel did not appear but another la&(er appeared to ask for postponement. Judge -likpala denied the postponement and dismissed the case &ithout pre7udice. n )* Jul( )*54, the herein respondents reC filed the same petition &ith the same court, &hich &as docketed as Civil Case $o. >B**:. The petition alleged three grounds therefor, namel(1 ()) the e.tension of the sta( of the petitioners (herein respondents) up to )) -pril )*5: &as authori"ed and approved b( the %ecretaries of !oreign -ffairs and of Justice3 (4) the( &ere due for eventual conversion into !ilipino citi"ens b( virtue of the granting of ?( 2ick Tu(Os petition for naturali"ation, &hich had not been appealed, and he &as due to take his oath of allegiance on )) -pril )*5:3 and (:) their departure from the 2hilippines &ould &ork great in7ur( and in7ustice to themselves. -s before, the petition pra(ed for

a preliminar( in7unction. This time, the case &as assigned to the sala of herein coC respondent Judge Faudencio Cloribel. n 4) Jul( )*54, respondent 7udge, e.Cparte and &ithout hearing, issued an order granting preliminar( in7unction, and, on a bond of 2:,BBB.BB, issued the &rit on 4A Jul( )*54. n : -ugust )*54, the 9mmigration Commissioner filed his ans&er (as respondent therein) stating, in defense, inter alia, that the visitorsO authori"ed sta( e.pired on )5 June )*543 that their change in categor( from temporar( visitors to special nonCimmigrants and the e.tension of their sta( up to )) -pril )*5: b( the %ecretaries of !oreign -ffairs and of Justice &as invalid, as subse0uentl( ruled b( their successors in office, and that it is the Commissioner of 9mmigration &ho is vested b( la& &ith po&er to grant e.tensions of sta(3 that the petition filed &as not the proper remed(3 that the %olicitorCFeneral &ill oppose the oathCtaking of ?( 2ick Tu(3 and that, even if Tu( &ill become a !ilipino citi"en, his &ife &ould not automaticall( become a !ilipino citi"en, as she has (et to sho& that she, herself, can be la&full( naturali"ed. Three (:) (ears passed &ithout the case having been heard. Then, on )A %eptember )*5>, the Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the case for the unreasonable length of time that the petitioners had failed to prosecute their case, and that even the final relief that the( sought, &hich &as to implement the e.tension up to )) -pril )*5:, had alread( e.pired. /ut, on opposition of herein respondents, the court, on 45 ctober )*5>, denied the motion to dismiss for being =not &ell taken.= n * Gecember )*5>, the 9mmigration Commissioner filed &ith the %upreme Court the present original action of certiorari and prohibition &ith preliminar( in7unction, contesting the respondent courtOs order of 4) Jul( )*54 granting preliminar( in7unction e.C parte, the &rit of preliminar( in7unction of 4A Jul( )*54, and the order of 45 ctober )*5> den(ing the motion to dismiss.

This Court re0uired the respondents to ans&er, and on )5 Gecember )*55, on motion of the petitioning Commissioner, it restrained the 2rivate respondents from representing themselves to be !ilipinos and from e.ercising an( of the rights and privileges of !ilipino citi"ens, until further orders from the Court. The conclusions derivable from the foregoing chain of uncontested facts are1 that herein private respondents secured admission to the 2hilippines as temporar( visitors b( falsel( pretending to come for a visit but, actuall(, &ith the intent to sta( permanentl(3 that, kno&ing that their authori"ed sta( &ould e.pire on )5 June )*54, private respondents filed their petition in court for in7unction, then dela(ed its ad7udication, the better to prolong their sta(3 and that private respondents have thus succeeded in prolonging their sta( in the countr( even be(ond the date that the( had originall( sought and asked for, &hich &as )) -pril )*5:, upon the respondent courtOs compounded abuse of discretion, inaction and e.cess of 7urisdiction. 6hich &as, in la&, the e.pir( date of the respondentsO sta(1 the )5th of June )*54, as fi.ed b( the 9mmigration Commissioner, or )) -pril )*5:, as authori"ed and approved b( the %erranoC'abanag indorsementsD This 0uestion, as &ell as the 0uestion of &hether temporar( visitors ma( change their status to special nonCimmigrants &ithout first departing from the countr(, &ere specificall( ans&ered b( this Court in #im Chiok, Et -l., v. 8ivo, #C 4B>):, 45 Gecember )*5:, in the follo&ing manner17gc1chanrobles.com.ph =. . . The soCcalled Cabinet Resolution of !ebruar( 4*, )*>5 did not specificall( authori"e the %ecretaries of !oreign -ffairs and of Justice to e.tend the sta( of temporar( visitors. 9t could not legall( do so because under the e.press provisions of the 9mmigration #a&, it is the Commissioner of 9mmigration &ho is vested &ith the po&er and authorit( to grant such e.tensions. -nd, the Cabinet has no po&er to amend or modif( the la&. 6e so declared in -ng #iong v. Commissioner of 9mmigration (>) .F. 4+*:) ) &hen &e said1 PThe %ecretar( of !oreign

-ffairs is not authori"ed to admit into the 2hilippines aliens for temporar( sta(, or e.tend the period authori"ed b( the Commissioner of 9mmigration for their sta( in the 2hilippines.O =$either can the t&o %ecretaries authori"e the change of status from temporar( visitors to special nonCimmigrants. The la& and our decisions on the matter are clear on this point1 temporar( visitors can not have their status changed to special nonCimmigrants &ithout first departing from the countr(.= (citing authorities) -s earl( as )*>5, in fact, this Court had alread( ruled that the period of sta( of alien temporar( visitors could not be e.tended &ithout first departing from the 9slands3 and in Chiong Tiao /ing v. Commissioner of 9mmigration (4+ %eptember )*>5) ** 2hil. )B4), )B4:, &e ruled17gc1chanrobles.com.ph =$o officer can relieve him of the departure re0uirements of P%ection * of the 9mmigration -ct, under the guise of PchangeO or PcorrectionO, for the la& makes no distinctions, and no officer is above the la&. -n( other ruling &ould, as stated in our previous decision, encourage aliens to enter the 9slands on false pretenses3 ever( alien, so permitted to enter for a limited time, might then claim a right to permanent admission, ho&ever flims( such claim should be, and thereb( compel our government to spend time, mone( and effort to e.amining and verif(ing &hether or not ever( such alien reall( has a right to take up permanent residence here. 9n the mean&hile, the alien &ould be able to prolong his sta( and evade his return to the port &hence he came, contrar( to &hat he promised to do &hen he entered. The damages inherent in such ruling are selfC evident.=crala& virtua)a& librar( That the Cabinet %ecretaries acted as alter egos of the 2resident, as no& claimed b( the respondents, is not true3 because the 2resident, &hen a re0uest for e.tension &as made directl( to him, did not affirm the acts of the %ecretaries but referred the matter to the Commissioner. The respondents kne& that said %ecretaries did not act as alter egos of

the 2resident3 other&ise, the( &ould not have &ritten the 2resident after the( receive the %ecretariesO indorsements. -nd &hen the 9mmigration Commissioner insisted upon private respondents departing from the 9sland, the( did not dare ask the 2resident for relief. The other reason given b( the respondents to support their petition filed &ith the court belo& is their e.pectation to follo& the citi"enship of ?( 2ick Tu( &hen he should take his oath of allegiance as a !ilipino citi"en. 4 %uch e.pectation is legall( baseless. -s to the &ife, Chua 2ic #uan, she does not, under %ection )> of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, automaticall( become a !ilipino citi"en on account of her marriage to a naturali"ed !ilipino citi"en, since she must first prove that she possesses all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications for naturali"ation. : /( having misrepresented before 2hilippine consular and administrative authorities that she came to the countr( for onl( a temporar( visit &hen, in fact, her intention &as to sta( permanentl(3 and for having intentionall( dela(ed court processes the better to prolong her sta(, respondent Chua 2ic #uan demonstrated her incapacit( to satisf( the 0ualifications e.acted b( the third paragraph of %ection 4 of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, that she must be of good moral character and must have conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the 2hilippines in her relation &ith the constituted government. -nd, having la&full( resided in the 2hilippines onl( from her arrival on )5 ctober )*5B to )5 June )*54, she (Chua 2ic #uan) also failed to meet the re0uired 0ualification of continuous residence in the 2hilippines for ten ()B) (ears, her sta( be(ond )5 June )*54 being illegal. -s to the foreign born minors, ?( Noc %iong and ?( Tian %iong, our pronouncement in 8ivo v. Cloribel, #C4:4:*, 4: $ovember )*55, )+ %CR,):, applies to them17gc1chanrobles.com.ph

=-s to foreignCborn minor children, the( are e.tended citi"enship Pif d&elling in the 2hilippines at the time of the naturali"ation of the parent.O PG&ellingO means la&ful residence. %ince prior to the time the father of respondents visitors &as supposed to have taken his oath of citi"enship . . . their la&ful period of sta( had e.pired and the( had alread( been re0uired to leave, the( &ere no longer la&full( residing here (Nua %u(, Et. -l. v. The Commissioner of 9mmigration, #C):,*B, ctober :), )*5:).=crala& virtua)a& librar( $or can these temporar( visitors claim an( right to a sta( coCterminous &ith the result of the naturali"ation proceeding of their husband and father, ?( 2ick Tu(, because their authori"ed sta( &as for a definite period, up to a fi.ed da(, a circumstance incompatible &ith the termination of the naturali"ation proceeding, &hich is uncertain and can not be set at a definite date. A 9t is contended for the respondents that t&oC (ear old respondent ?( Tian %iong cannot, under -rticle :5: of the Civil Code, be separated from his mother3 that husband ?( 2ick Tu( has the right to fi. the residence of the famil( (-rticle ))B), to the compan( of his &ife (-rticle )B*) and those of his minor children (-rticle :)5), and said &ife and children are obliged to obe( and live &ith him (-rticles )B*, :)), :>,)3 and that to make said &ife and children depart from the 2hilippines is destructive of famil( solidarit( (-rticles 4)+C 44)). These arguments are beside the point. %aid la&s govern the relations bet&een husband and &ife inter se or bet&een private persons, > not the relations bet&een visiting aliens and the sovereign hostCcountr(. Respondents seem to have forgotten that the( came here for a visit, and, as visitors, the( have no right to impose upon their host a period of sta( of their o&n choosing. !urthermore, being still aliens, 5 the( are not in a position to invoke the provisions of the Civil Code of the 2hilippines, for that Code cleaves to the principle that famil( rights and duties are governed b( their personal la&, i.e., the la&s of the nation to &hich the( belong even &hen sta(ing in a foreign countr( (cf. Civil Code, -rticle )>).

The date insisted upon b( the Commissioner as the terminal date of sta( of the respondents ()5 June )*54) had alread( passed &hen respondent 7udge issued his &rit of preliminar( in7unction (4A Jul( )*54). This fact should have cautioned him to issue notice to the 9mmigration Commissioner and hold a hearing before issuing the &rit. /ut respondent 7udge never did hold a hearing, either on the preliminar( in7unction or on the merits, so that it is mild to sa( that his e.Cparte preliminar( in7unction &as improvidentl( issued. The date insisted on b( the respondents as their terminal date of sta( ()) -pril )*5:) had, like&ise, long e.pired &hen the Commissioner filed his motion to dismiss ()A %eptember )*5>) in the court belo&. 2lainl(, the case had b( then become moot and academic, , and the court &as left &ith no further controvers( to ad7udicate. Hence, the respondent, Judge Cloribel, &himsicall( and arbitraril( denied the motion, in open disregard of the public interest and of the national polic( e.pressed in the 9mmigration -ct. Thus, the respondent 7udge, b( refusing to dismiss the case, allo&ed these alien visitors to remain in the countr( for as long as the case remained pending in his docket3 in effect, he abusivel( arrogated unto himself the po&er to grant e.tensions of sta( to temporar( visitors, a facult( that, under the la&, belongs to the Commissioner. Thus, respondent 7udge, instead of appl(ing and interpreting the la&, has effectivel( disregarded the same and violated its polic(. 6HERE! RE, the order granting preliminar( in7unction on 4) Jul( )*54, the &rit of preliminar( in7unction on 4A Jul( )*54, and the order of 45 ctober )*5>, all issued in Civil Case $o. >B**: of the Court of !irst 9nstance of 'anila, are all hereb( set aside, and the respondent 7udge is hereb( permanentl( restrained from taking cogni"ance and assuming 7urisdiction over said Civil Case $o. >B**:, e.cept to dismiss it as moot and academic. The preliminar( in7unction heretofore issued b( this Court is hereb( made permanent. Costs against private respondents.

Concepcion, C.J., Gi"on, 'akalintal, %anche", Castro, -ngeles, !ernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur. Jaldivar, J., did not take part.

G.R. No. L-2;2)2 Ju.4 1), 19@3 IN RE ETITION TO "ECLARE %ITA NGO TO OSSESS ALL $UALIFICATIONS AN" NONE OF THE "IS$UALIFICATIONS FOR NATURALI%ATION UN"ER CO''ONAEALTH ACT ;@3 FOR THE UR OSE OF CANCELLING HER ALIEN REGISTRY AITH THE BUREAU OF I''IGRATION. %ITA NGO BURCA, petitionerCappellee, vs. RE UBLIC OF THE HILI INES, oppositorC appellant. Arte6io &erecho, Angelito C. !6perio and $erdinand ". Tinio for petitioner7appellee. Office of the "olicitor 8eneral Antonio -. Barredo and "olicitor Bernardo -. -ardo for oppositor7appellant. RE% #?T9 $

ANTONIO, J.: 2etitioner seeks reconsideration of the decision in this case &hich reversed that of the Court of !irst 9nstance of #e(te declaring her a citi"en of the 2hilippines, the said court have found her to be married to a !ilipino citi"en and to possess all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications to become !ilipino citi"en enumerated in the $aturali"ation #a&. Her motion to such effect &as filed on !ebruar( 4B, )*5,, and 'arch 4, )*5,, the Court re0uired the %olicitor Feneral to comment on the same. n ctober A, )*,), ho&ever, before petitionerEs motion could be resolved, this Court rendered decision in the case of 'o( @a #im @ao, etc., et al. vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, F.R.

$o. #C4)4+*, &hich, effect, passed on all the issues raised in said motion favorabl( to petitionerEs position. -ccordingl(, and there being sufficient number of members of the Court in favor of maintaining the ruling in the 'o( @a #im @ao case, the decision in this case should be modified. n -pril 4A, )*5A, petitioner filed &ith the Court of !irst 9nstance of #e(te a petition alleging that she is married to !ilipino citi"en and possesses all the 0ualifications and none the dis0ualifications for naturali"ation under Common&ealth -ct A,: and pra(ing that a declaration to such effect be made b( the Court for the purpose of la(ing the basis for the cancellation b( the /ureau of 9mmigration of her alien certificate of registration. n -pril ),, )*5A, the court set the petition for hearing on $ovember 4B, )*5A and ordered notified thereof to be given to the %olicitor Feneral. 9n the same order it &as re0uired that said notice of hearing be published in the fficial Fa"ette once a month for three consecutive months a once a &eek for three consecutive &eeks in the 'orning Times, a ne&spaper edited in the Cit( of rmoc, &here petition resides, and posted in a public and conspicuous place in the ffice of the Clerk of Court. n $ovember ):, )*5A, the %olicitor Feneral filed an = pposition and 'otion to Gismiss= on the follo&ing grounds1 ()) -s an application for 2hilippine Citi"enship, the petition is fatall( defective for failure to contain or mention the essential allegations re0uired under %ection , of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, as amended, such as petitionerEs former places of residence, and that she has all the 0ualifications re0uired under %ection 4 and none of the dis0ualifications specified under %ection A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&. %pecificall(, as can be gathered in the $otice of Hearing, there is no allegation that she is of good moral character and believes in the

principles underl(ing the 2hilippine Constitution, and has conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the 2hilippines3 or that she has some kno&n lucrative trade, profession, or la&ful occupation. #ike&ise, there is no sho&ing that the petition is supported b( the affidavits of at least t&o credible persons stating that the( are citi"ens of the 2hilippines and personall( kno& the petitioner to be a resident of the 2hilippines for the period of time re0uired b( this -ct, and a person of good repute and morall( irreproachable, and that said petitioner has, in their opinion, all the 0ualifications necessar( to become a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and is not in an( &a( dis0ualified under the provision of the -ct. %imilarl(, there is no sho&ing that she has filed a declaration of intention or is e.empt from such re0uirement. Even in the $otice of Hearing, there is failure to mention the names of &itnesses &hom she proposes to introduce in support of the petition, as re0uired under %ection * of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, as amended. (4) -s a separate proceedings to declare the petitioner a citi"en being allegedl( the &ife of a !ilipino citi"en, and to direct the cancellation of her alien Registr(, it is &ell settled in this 7urisdiction that there is no proceeding established b( la&, or the rules for the 7udicial declaration of the citi"enship of an individual (2alaran vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C)>BA,, Januar( :B, )*543 Channie

Tan vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C )A)>*, -pril )+, )*5B3 Tan @u Chin vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C )>,,>, -pril 4*, )*5)3 Gelumen vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C>>4. Januar( 4+, )*>A3 in re Hospicion biles A* ff. Fa". *4:), and that citi"enship is not the proper sub7ect for declarator( 7udgment (!eliseta Tan vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C )5)B+, ctober :), )*5B1 %antiago vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, F.R. $o. #C )A5>:, Januar( :), )*5:3 /oard of Commissioners, et al. vs. Hon. !eli. R. Gomingo, etc., et al., F.R. $o. #C4)4,A, Jul( :), )*5:). Thereafter, the court proceeded to hear the case and rendered its decision, in &hich it found inter alia the follo&ing1 -fter the necessar( publications of the notice of hearing in the fficial Fa"ette for Jul( 5, Jul( ): and 4B, )*5A, (E.hibit -) and the 'orning Times for -pril 45, 'a( :, )B, )*5A (E.hibits /, /C), /C4 and /C:) this case &as called for trial &ith the Honorable %olicitor Feneral opposing the petition as aforesaid. 9t appears from the evidence presented that petitioner is a native born $ationalist Chinese Citi"en &ho &as born at Figa0uit %urigao on 'arch :B, )*:: (E.hibit G). 9n )*A5, she transferred to %urigao, %urigao until her marriage to !lorencio /urca a native born !ilipino Citi"en on 'a( )A, )*5) (E.hibit C) &hen she transferred to rmoc Cit( to live &ith her husband. 2etitioner studied at %urigao,

%urigao from first grade to fourth (ear &here she graduated. Thereafter she took home economics special course at the ?niversit( of %an Carlos, Cebu Cit(. 2etitioner kno&s ho& to read and &rite the CebuanoC 8isa(an dialect, and the English language (E.hibits F and H). %he has not left the 2hilippines since birth up to the present time. %he is a holder of -CR $o. -C )A+B> (E.h. E) and $ative /orn Certificate of Residence $o. A5::: (E.h. !). 2etitioner has no criminal record and that she has no pending case, civil or criminal or administrative, and that she has never been convicted of an( crime (E.hibits J, N, #). %he is engaged in farming and in business and had a net income &ith her husband in the sum of 2)5,B:A.+A for &hich the( paid an 9ncome Ta. of 2),>>5.BB per .R. CC B>B:>, dated at rmoc Cit( on -pril )A, )*5A (E.hibits ) and )C)). %he is a person of good moral character and believes in the principles underl(ing the 2hilippine Constitution, and has conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the 2hilippines in her relation &ith the constituted government as &ell as &ith the communit( in &hich she is living.

%he is supporting a t&oC(ear old legitimate child. %he is not opposed to organi"ed government or affiliated &ith an( association or group of persons &ho uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organi"ed governments. %he is not defending or teaching the necessit( or propriet( of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas. %he is not a pol(gamist or a believer in the practice of pol(gam(. %he has mingled sociall( &ith the !ilipinos, and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the !ilipinos. %he is a Catholic and &as 7oined in &edlock b( a Catholic priest (E.h. C). $o evidence &as presented b( the oppositor and Cit( !iscal Ramon de 8e(ra, representing the %olicitor Feneral limited himself to the cross e.amination of the petitioner. and held1 6HERE! RE, decision is hereb( rendered dismissing the opposition, and declaring that J9T- $F /?RCpetitioner, has all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications to become a !ilipino Citi"en and that she being married to a !ilipino Citi"en, is hereb( declared a citi"en of the 2hilippines, after taking the necessar( oath of

allegiance, as soon as this decision becomes final and e.ecutor(. The %olicitor Feneral appealed in due time and made the follo&ing assignment of errors1 9 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ -%%?'9$F J?R9%G9CT9 $ 8ER THE 2R CEEG9$F% ! R THE GEC#-R-T9 $ ! 2ET9T9 $ER -% - !9#929$ C9T9JE$ /@ RE-% $ ! HER '-RR9-FE T !9#929$ . 99 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ GEC#-R9$F TH-T 2ET9T9 $ER H-% -## THE I?-#9!9C-T9 $% -$G $ $E ! THE G9%I?-#9!9C-T9 $% T /EC 'E !9#929$ C9T9JE$. 999 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ GEC#-R9$F 2ET9T9 $ER C9T9JE$ ! THE 2H9#9229$E% %HE /E9$F '-RR9EG T - !9#929$ C9T9JE$. 98 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ G9%'9%%9$F THE 22 %9T9 $ ! THE F 8ER$'E$T. 9 9n the decision of this Court in this case rendered on Januar( :B, )*5,, the position of the %olicitor Feneral &as upheld the above

7udgment of the trial court &as reversed, the Court holding ()) that the onl( means b( &hich the alien &ife !ilipino citi"en ma( have herself declared as having become a !ilipino citi"en b( reason of her marriage is through compliance &ith the procedure for naturali"ation contained in the $aturali"ation #a&, Common&ealth -ct A,:, and (4) in said proceeding aside from the sho&ing that she is laboring under an( of the dis0ualifications enumerate %ection A, thereof, she must prove that she possesses all 0ualifications under %ection 4 of the same statute. 'ore specificall( the alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en, in order to ac0uire the citi"enship of her husband is re0uired to file corresponding petition for naturali"ation in court, allege prove all the re0uisite re0uirements such as continuous residence for a period of at least ten (ears, lucrative income and the like. 9n other &ords, she &as re0uired to follo& procedure for the 7udicial naturali"ation of aliens, thus rendering for naught the first paragraph of %ection )> of Revised $aturali"ation #a&. ?nder such doctrine the alien &ife of a !ilipino &as placed in some cases in a disadvantageous position than an ordinar( alien. To accord substance to the obvious legislative purpose this Court in the 'o( @a #im @ao case, held thru 'r. Justice /arredo1 6ith all these considerations in mind, 6e are persuaded that it is in the best interest of all concerned that %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a& be given effect in the same &a( as it &as understood and construed &hen the phrase E&ho ma( be la&full( naturali"edE, found in the -merican statute from &hich it &as borro&ed and copied verbatim, &as applied b( the -merican courts and administrative authorities. There is merit, of course, in the vie& that 2hilippine statutes should be construed in the light of 2hilippine circumstances, and &ith

particular reference to our naturali"ation la&s, 6e should reali"e the disparit( in the circumstances bet&een the ?nited %tates, as the soCcalled Emelting potE of peoples from all over the &orld, and the 2hilippines as a developing countr( &hose Constitution is nationalistic almost in the e.treme. Certainl(, the &riter of this opinion cannot be the last in rather passionatel( insisting that our 7urisprudence should speak our o&n concepts and resort to -merican authorities, to be sure, entitled to admiration and respect, should not be regarded as source of pride and indisputable authorit(. %till, 6e cannot close our e(es to the undeniable fact that the provision of la& no& under scrutin( has no local origin and orientation3 it is purel( -merican, factuall( taken bodil( from -merican la& &hen the 2hilippines &as under the dominating influence of statutes of the ?nited %tates Congress. 9t is indeed a sad commentar( on the &ork of our o&n legislature of the late )*4BEs and )*:BEs that given the opportunit( to break a&a( from the old -merican pattern, it took no step in that direction. 9ndeed, even after -merica made it patentl( clear in the -ct of Congress of %eptember 44, )*44 that alien &omen marr(ing -mericans cannot be citi"ens of the ?nited %tates &ithout undergoing naturali"ation proceedings, our legislators still chose to adopt the previous -merican la& of -ugust )B, )+>> as embodied later in %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of )+,A, &hich, it is &orth reiterating, &as consistentl( and uniforml(

understood as conferring -merican citi"enship to alien &omen marr(ing -mericans ipso facto, &ithout having to submit to an( naturali"ation proceeding and &ithout having to prove that the( possess the special 0ualifications of residence, moral character, adherence to -merican ideals and -merican constitution, provided the( could sho& the( did not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in the -merican $aturali"ation #a&. -ccordingl(, 6e no& hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating other&ise not&ithstanding, that under %ection )> of Common&ealth -ct A,:, an alien &oman marr(ing a !ilipino, nativeC born or naturali"ed, becomes ipso facto a !ilipina provided she is not dis0ualified to be a citi"en of 2hilippines under %ection A of the same la&. #ike&ise, an alien &oman married to an alien &ho is subse0uentl( naturali"ed here follo&s the 2hilippine citi"enship of her husband the moment takes his oath as !ilipino citi"en, provided that she does not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications under said %ection A. (A) %C 4*4, :>BC:>).) 6ithal, the Court also held that it is not necessar( for alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en to resort to the procedure naturali"ation cases before she can be declared a citi"en reason of her marriage 6e further added1 The 0uestion that keeps bouncing back as a conse0uence of the foregoing vie&s is, &hat substitute is there for naturali"ation proceedings to enable the alien &ife of a 2hilippine citi"en to have the matter of

her o&n, citi"enship settled and established so that she ma( not have to be called upon to prove it ever(time she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or e.ercise right reserved onl( to !ilipinosD The read( ans&er to such 0uestion is that as the la&s of our countr(, both substantive and procedural stand toda(, there is no such procedure, but such paucit( is no proof that the citi"enship under discussion is not vested as of the date marriage or the husbandEs ac0uisition of citi"enship, as the case ma( be, for the truth is that the same situation obtains even as to native born !ilipinos. Ever(time the citi"enship of a person is material or indispensable in a 7udicial or administrative case, &hatever the corresponding court or administrative authorit( decides therein as to such citi"enship is generall( not considered as res ad'udicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion ma( demand. This, as &e vie& it, is the sense in &hich Justice Gi"on referred to =appropriate proceeding= in Brito v. Co66issioner, supra. 9ndeed, onl( the good sense and 7udgment of those subse0uentl( in0uiring into the matter ma( make the effort easier or simpler for the persons concerned b( rel(ing someho& on the antecedent official findings, even if these are not reall( binding. 9t ma( not be amiss to suggest, ho&ever, that in order to have good starting point and so that the most immediate relevant public records ma( be kept in order,

the follo&ing observations in pinion $o. :+, series of )*>+, of then -cting %ecretar( of Justice Jesus F. /arrera, ma( be considered as the most appropriate initial step b( the interested parties1 ERegarding the steps that should be taken b( an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en in order to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship, the procedure follo&ed in the /ureau of 9mmigration is as follo&s1 The alien &oman must file a petition for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration alleging, among other things, that she is married to a !ilipino citi"en and that she is not dis0ualified from ac0uiring her husbandEs citi"enship pursuant to section A of Common&ealt h -ct $o. A,:, as amended. ?pon the filing of said petition, &hich should be accompanied or supported b( the 7oint

affidavit of the petitioner and her !ilipino husband to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to an( of the groups dis0ualified b( the cited section from becoming naturali"ed !ilipino citi"en (please see attached CE/ !orm )), the /ureau of 9mmigration conducts an investigation and thereafter promulgates its order or decision granting or den(ing the petition.E nce the Commissioner of 9mmigration cancels the sub7ectEs registration as an alien, there &ill probabl( be less difficult( in establishing her !ilipino citi"enship in an( other proceeding, depending naturall( on the substance and vigor of the opposition.= . -s alread( stated, it is the vie& of the ma7orit( of the Court that insofar as the decision in the case at bar conflicts &ith the above rulings laid do&n in 'o( @a #im @ao, it should be reconsidered and modified. Truth to tell, 6e can hardl( do other&ise. -s ma( be gathered from the opinion &ritten for the Court b( Justice /arredo in that case, the Court not onl( made reference to but actuall( sustained man( of the arguments advanced in the motion for reconsideration of herein appellee as &ell as in the memorandum submitted b( the a6ici curiae in this case.

The foregoing discussion not&ithstanding, 6e cannot grant petitionerCappelleeEs pra(er for the affirmance of the trial courtEs 7udgment declaring her a !ilipino citi"en. 9t must be noted that the sole and onl( purpose of the petition is to have petitioner declared a !ilipino citi"en. ?nder our la&s there can be no 7udicial action or proceeding for the declaration of the citi"enship of an individual. 9t is as an incident onl( of the ad7udication of the rights of the parties to a controvers(, that the courts ma( pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to, their status. 9n 'o( @a #im @ao, 6e adverted to administrative procedure heretofore follo&ed in the /ureau 9mmigration regarding the steps to be taken b( an alien &oman married to a !ilipino for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration, and thus secure recognition of her status !ilipino citi"en. %uch a procedure could be availed of 2etitioner. Judicial recourse &ould be avoidable to 2etitioner in case of an adverse action b( the 9mmigration Commissioner. 99 -t the same time, it ma( not be amiss to clarif( a matter related to the point involved in this case, &hich has given to a certain degree of confusion and unnecessar( difficulties on the part of all concerned. 6e deem it &ise to deal &ith it here in order to preclude unnecessar( litigations, not to speak of legal complications that ma( ensue as a conse0uence of the lack of finalit( of 7udicial or administrative determinations on personEs citi"enship in certain cases. Heretofore up to 'o( @a #im @ao, it has been the constant doctrine of this Court, that a final and e.ecutor( decision the 0uestion of citi"enship, b( a court other than in naturali"ation proceedings, or b( an administrative bod(, generall( not considered binding in other cases and for other purpose than that specificall( involved in the case &here such decision is rendered. Thus for instance, in a case involving the determination of the citi"enship of a part( as a prere0uisite to the e.ercise of a license, franchise or privilege, such as operation of a public utilit(, and &here the administration agenc(

concerned shall have found as an established fact to the applicant is a !ilipino citi"en, even if such finding, ma( have been affirmed b( this Court on appeal, the same &ill be considered as conclusive on the 0uestion of such citi"enship. Hence if such part( should appl( for a license to engage in retail trade or for the lease or purchase of an( disposable lands of the public domain, the 0uestion of his citi"enship ma( litigated again. ?nderstandabl( such a result is unfair to the part( concerned. 9nstead of according finalit( and stabilit( 7udicial or administrative decisions, it engenders confusion and multiplicit( of suits. Certainl( if the decision of the administrative agenc( on the matter of citi"enship, as an important issue involved in the case, is affirmed b( this Court, 6e find no cogent reason &h( such decision on the matter can not be given preclusive effect. 6e have conceded the authorit( of certain administrative agencies to ascertain the citi"enship of the parties involved in the cases therein, as a matter inherent in or essential to the efficient e.ercise of their po&ers. Recogni"ing the basic premise, that there must be an end to litigations, some authorities recogni"e that administrative rulings or decisions should have res 'udicata or preclusive effect. 9n discussing this point, 2rofessor -llan G. 8estal of the ?niversit( of 9o&a, holds the vie& that1 2reclusive effect ma( or ma( not be given to an administrative ruling depending on a number of factors. 9f the decision is a factual matter and if it has been rendered b( an agenc( &ith factCfinding procedures &hich appro.imate those of a court, then preclusion should obtain.= (8estal 2reclusionLRes Judicata 8ariables1 -d7udicating /odies, >A Feorgeto&n #a& Journal, +>,, +,A.) bviousl(, if the decision of an administrative agenc( on the 0uestion of citi"enship, is affirmed b( this Court on the ground that the same is supported b( substantial evidence on the &hole record, there appears to be no valid reason &h( such finding should have no conclusive effect in other cases, &here the same issue is involved. The same observation holds true &ith respect to a decision of a court on the

matter of citi"enship as a material matter in issue in the case before it, &hich is affirmed b( this Court. !or the =effective operation of courts in the social and economic scheme re0uires that their decision have the respect of and be observed b( the parties, the general public and the courts themselves. -ccording insufficient &eight to prior decisions encourages disrespect and disregard of courts and their decisions and invites litigation= (Clear, Res Judicata Ree.amined, >, @ale #a& Journal, :A>). 9t must be stressed ho&ever that in the public interest, in such cases, the %olicitor Feneral or his authori"ed representative should be allo&ed to intervene on behalf of the Republic of the 2hilippines, and to take appropriate steps the premises. !or onl( in that manner can there be assurance that the claim to !ilipino citi"enship &as thoroughl( threshed out before the corresponding court or administration agenc(. -ccordingl(, in response to the vigorous and able plea of a6ici curiae, 6e declare it to be a sound rule, that &here citi"enship of a part( in a case is definitel( resolved b( a court or b( an administrative agenc(, as a material issue in controvers(, after a fullCblo&n hearing, &ith the act participation of the %olicitor Feneral or his authorit( representative, and this finding on the Citi"enship of the part( is affirmed b( this Court, the decision on the matter sho&s constitute conclusive proof of such personEs citi"enship, in a other case or proceeding. /ut it is made clear that in instance &ill a decision on the 0uestion of citi"enship in such cases be considered conclusive or binding in an( other case proceeding, unless obtained in accordance &ith the procedure herein stated. 9n resume, therefore, since ur opinion in the decision Januar( :B, )*5,, re0uiring an alien &oman married to !ilipino &ho desires to be a citi"en of this Countr(, to submit a 7udicial proceeding in all respects similar to a naturali"ation case, &herein in addition, she has to prove not onl( that she not laboring under an( of the dis0ualifications under section but also possesses all the 0ualifications set forth in section 4 of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, conflicts &ith ur

ruling 'o( @a #im @ao, the decision has to that e.tent be consider modified. 1 6e cannot, ho&ever, affirm petitionerEs claim !ilipino citi"enship in these proceedings. That is a matter &hich in accordance &ith ur suggestion in 'o( @a #im @ao the appropriate governmental agenc(, such as the Commissioner on 9mmigration, shall have to pass upon. 9$ 89E6 6HERE !, and consistentl( &ith the foregoing opinion, the decision herein of Januar( :B, )*5, is hereb( modified3 the reversal of the decision of the court a 0uo and the dismissal of the petition, are ho&ever affirmed, &ithout pre7udice to petitionerEs availing of the procedure indicated above. $o costs. +a:alintal, Castro, Teehan:ee and JJ., concur. sguerra,

,aldivar, J., concurs in line with the view he e5pressed in @ap vs. %epu*lic, L7A3B1C. $ernando and Barredo, JJ., too: no part. +a:asiar, J., concurs in the result, *ut dissents and votes to 6aintain the decision sought to *e reconsidered for the reason therein stated. G.R. No. L-2;2)2 Ju.4 1), 19@3 IN RE ETITION TO "ECLARE %ITA NGO TO OSSESS ALL $UALIFICATIONS AN" NONE OF THE "IS$UALIFICATIONS FOR NATURALI%ATION UN"ER CO''ONAEALTH ACT ;@3 FOR THE UR OSE OF CANCELLING HER ALIEN REGISTRY AITH THE BUREAU OF I''IGRATION. %ITA NGO BURCA, petitionerCappellee, vs. RE UBLIC OF THE HILI INES, oppositorC appellant. Arte6io &erecho, Angelito C. !6perio and $erdinand ". Tinio for petitioner7appellee.

Office of the "olicitor 8eneral Antonio -. Barredo and "olicitor Bernardo -. -ardo for oppositor7appellant. RE% #?T9 $

Cit( of rmoc, &here petition resides, and posted in a public and conspicuous place in the ffice of the Clerk of Court. n $ovember ):, )*5A, the %olicitor Feneral filed an = pposition and 'otion to Gismiss= on the follo&ing grounds1 ()) -s an application for 2hilippine Citi"enship, the petition is fatall( defective for failure to contain or mention the essential allegations re0uired under %ection , of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, as amended, such as petitionerEs former places of residence, and that she has all the 0ualifications re0uired under %ection 4 and none of the dis0ualifications specified under %ection A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&. %pecificall(, as can be gathered in the $otice of Hearing, there is no allegation that she is of good moral character and believes in the principles underl(ing the 2hilippine Constitution, and has conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the 2hilippines3 or that she has some kno&n lucrative trade, profession, or la&ful occupation. #ike&ise, there is no sho&ing that the petition is supported b( the affidavits of at least t&o credible persons stating that the( are citi"ens of the 2hilippines and personall( kno& the petitioner to be a resident of the 2hilippines for the period of time re0uired b( this -ct, and a person of good repute and morall( irreproachable, and that said petitioner has, in their opinion, all the 0ualifications necessar( to become a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and is not in an( &a( dis0ualified under the

ANTONIO, J.: 2etitioner seeks reconsideration of the decision in this case &hich reversed that of the Court of !irst 9nstance of #e(te declaring her a citi"en of the 2hilippines, the said court have found her to be married to a !ilipino citi"en and to possess all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications to become !ilipino citi"en enumerated in the $aturali"ation #a&. Her motion to such effect &as filed on !ebruar( 4B, )*5,, and 'arch 4, )*5,, the Court re0uired the %olicitor Feneral to comment on the same. n ctober A, )*,), ho&ever, before petitionerEs motion could be resolved, this Court rendered decision in the case of 'o( @a #im @ao, etc., et al. vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, F.R. $o. #C4)4+*, &hich, effect, passed on all the issues raised in said motion favorabl( to petitionerEs position. -ccordingl(, and there being sufficient number of members of the Court in favor of maintaining the ruling in the 'o( @a #im @ao case, the decision in this case should be modified. n -pril 4A, )*5A, petitioner filed &ith the Court of !irst 9nstance of #e(te a petition alleging that she is married to !ilipino citi"en and possesses all the 0ualifications and none the dis0ualifications for naturali"ation under Common&ealth -ct A,: and pra(ing that a declaration to such effect be made b( the Court for the purpose of la(ing the basis for the cancellation b( the /ureau of 9mmigration of her alien certificate of registration. n -pril ),, )*5A, the court set the petition for hearing on $ovember 4B, )*5A and ordered notified thereof to be given to the %olicitor Feneral. 9n the same order it &as re0uired that said notice of hearing be published in the fficial Fa"ette once a month for three consecutive months a once a &eek for three consecutive &eeks in the 'orning Times, a ne&spaper edited in the

provision of the -ct. %imilarl(, there is no sho&ing that she has filed a declaration of intention or is e.empt from such re0uirement. Even in the $otice of Hearing, there is failure to mention the names of &itnesses &hom she proposes to introduce in support of the petition, as re0uired under %ection * of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, as amended. (4) -s a separate proceedings to declare the petitioner a citi"en being allegedl( the &ife of a !ilipino citi"en, and to direct the cancellation of her alien Registr(, it is &ell settled in this 7urisdiction that there is no proceeding established b( la&, or the rules for the 7udicial declaration of the citi"enship of an individual (2alaran vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C)>BA,, Januar( :B, )*543 Channie Tan vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C )A)>*, -pril )+, )*5B3 Tan @u Chin vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C )>,,>, -pril 4*, )*5)3 Gelumen vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C>>4. Januar( 4+, )*>A3 in re Hospicion biles A* ff. Fa". *4:), and that citi"enship is not the proper sub7ect for declarator( 7udgment (!eliseta Tan vs. Republic, F.R. $o. #C )5)B+, ctober :), )*5B1 %antiago vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, F.R. $o. #C )A5>:, Januar( :), )*5:3 /oard of Commissioners, et al. vs. Hon. !eli. R. Gomingo, etc., et al., F.R. $o. #C4)4,A, Jul( :), )*5:). Thereafter, the court proceeded to hear the case and rendered its decision, in &hich it found inter alia the follo&ing1

-fter the necessar( publications of the notice of hearing in the fficial Fa"ette for Jul( 5, Jul( ): and 4B, )*5A, (E.hibit -) and the 'orning Times for -pril 45, 'a( :, )B, )*5A (E.hibits /, /C), /C4 and /C:) this case &as called for trial &ith the Honorable %olicitor Feneral opposing the petition as aforesaid. 9t appears from the evidence presented that petitioner is a native born $ationalist Chinese Citi"en &ho &as born at Figa0uit %urigao on 'arch :B, )*:: (E.hibit G). 9n )*A5, she transferred to %urigao, %urigao until her marriage to !lorencio /urca a native born !ilipino Citi"en on 'a( )A, )*5) (E.hibit C) &hen she transferred to rmoc Cit( to live &ith her husband. 2etitioner studied at %urigao, %urigao from first grade to fourth (ear &here she graduated. Thereafter she took home economics special course at the ?niversit( of %an Carlos, Cebu Cit(. 2etitioner kno&s ho& to read and &rite the CebuanoC 8isa(an dialect, and the English language (E.hibits F and H). %he has not left the 2hilippines since birth up to the present time. %he is a holder of -CR $o. -C )A+B> (E.h. E) and $ative /orn Certificate of Residence $o. A5::: (E.h. !). 2etitioner has no criminal record and that she has no pending case, civil or criminal

or administrative, and that she has never been convicted of an( crime (E.hibits J, N, #). %he is engaged in farming and in business and had a net income &ith her husband in the sum of 2)5,B:A.+A for &hich the( paid an 9ncome Ta. of 2),>>5.BB per .R. CC B>B:>, dated at rmoc Cit( on -pril )A, )*5A (E.hibits ) and )C)). and held1 %he is a person of good moral character and believes in the principles underl(ing the 2hilippine Constitution, and has conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the 2hilippines in her relation &ith the constituted government as &ell as &ith the communit( in &hich she is living. %he is supporting a t&oC(ear old legitimate child. %he is not opposed to organi"ed government or affiliated &ith an( association or group of persons &ho uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organi"ed governments. %he is not defending or teaching the necessit( or propriet( of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas. %he is not a pol(gamist or a believer in the practice of pol(gam(. %he has mingled sociall( &ith the !ilipinos, and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and

embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the !ilipinos. %he is a Catholic and &as 7oined in &edlock b( a Catholic priest (E.h. C). $o evidence &as presented b( the oppositor and Cit( !iscal Ramon de 8e(ra, representing the %olicitor Feneral limited himself to the cross e.amination of the petitioner.

6HERE! RE, decision is hereb( rendered dismissing the opposition, and declaring that J9T- $F /?RCpetitioner, has all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications to become a !ilipino Citi"en and that she being married to a !ilipino Citi"en, is hereb( declared a citi"en of the 2hilippines, after taking the necessar( oath of allegiance, as soon as this decision becomes final and e.ecutor(. The %olicitor Feneral appealed in due time and made the follo&ing assignment of errors1 9 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ -%%?'9$F J?R9%G9CT9 $ 8ER THE 2R CEEG9$F% ! R THE GEC#-R-T9 $ ! 2ET9T9 $ER -% - !9#929$ C9T9JE$ /@ RE-% $ ! HER '-RR9-FE T !9#929$ . 99 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ GEC#-R9$F TH-T 2ET9T9 $ER H-% -## THE I?-#9!9C-T9 $% -$G

$ $E ! THE G9%I?-#9!9C-T9 $% T /EC 'E !9#929$ C9T9JE$. 999 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ GEC#-R9$F 2ET9T9 $ER C9T9JE$ ! THE 2H9#9229$E% %HE /E9$F '-RR9EG T - !9#929$ C9T9JE$. 98 THE TR9-# C ?RT ERREG 9$ G9%'9%%9$F THE 22 %9T9 $ ! THE F 8ER$'E$T. 9 9n the decision of this Court in this case rendered on Januar( :B, )*5,, the position of the %olicitor Feneral &as upheld the above 7udgment of the trial court &as reversed, the Court holding ()) that the onl( means b( &hich the alien &ife !ilipino citi"en ma( have herself declared as having become a !ilipino citi"en b( reason of her marriage is through compliance &ith the procedure for naturali"ation contained in the $aturali"ation #a&, Common&ealth -ct A,:, and (4) in said proceeding aside from the sho&ing that she is laboring under an( of the dis0ualifications enumerate %ection A, thereof, she must prove that she possesses all 0ualifications under %ection 4 of the same statute. 'ore specificall( the alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en, in order to ac0uire the citi"enship of her husband is re0uired to file corresponding petition for naturali"ation in court, allege prove all the re0uisite re0uirements such as continuous residence for a period of at least ten (ears, lucrative income and the like. 9n other &ords, she &as re0uired to follo& procedure for the 7udicial naturali"ation of aliens, thus rendering for naught the first paragraph of %ection )> of Revised $aturali"ation #a&. ?nder such doctrine the alien &ife of a !ilipino &as placed in some

cases in a disadvantageous position than an ordinar( alien. To accord substance to the obvious legislative purpose this Court in the 'o( @a #im @ao case, held thru 'r. Justice /arredo1 6ith all these considerations in mind, 6e are persuaded that it is in the best interest of all concerned that %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a& be given effect in the same &a( as it &as understood and construed &hen the phrase E&ho ma( be la&full( naturali"edE, found in the -merican statute from &hich it &as borro&ed and copied verbatim, &as applied b( the -merican courts and administrative authorities. There is merit, of course, in the vie& that 2hilippine statutes should be construed in the light of 2hilippine circumstances, and &ith particular reference to our naturali"ation la&s, 6e should reali"e the disparit( in the circumstances bet&een the ?nited %tates, as the soCcalled Emelting potE of peoples from all over the &orld, and the 2hilippines as a developing countr( &hose Constitution is nationalistic almost in the e.treme. Certainl(, the &riter of this opinion cannot be the last in rather passionatel( insisting that our 7urisprudence should speak our o&n concepts and resort to -merican authorities, to be sure, entitled to admiration and respect, should not be regarded as source of pride and indisputable authorit(. %till, 6e cannot close our e(es to the undeniable fact that the provision of la& no& under scrutin( has no local origin and orientation3 it is purel(

-merican, factuall( taken bodil( from -merican la& &hen the 2hilippines &as under the dominating influence of statutes of the ?nited %tates Congress. 9t is indeed a sad commentar( on the &ork of our o&n legislature of the late )*4BEs and )*:BEs that given the opportunit( to break a&a( from the old -merican pattern, it took no step in that direction. 9ndeed, even after -merica made it patentl( clear in the -ct of Congress of %eptember 44, )*44 that alien &omen marr(ing -mericans cannot be citi"ens of the ?nited %tates &ithout undergoing naturali"ation proceedings, our legislators still chose to adopt the previous -merican la& of -ugust )B, )+>> as embodied later in %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of )+,A, &hich, it is &orth reiterating, &as consistentl( and uniforml( understood as conferring -merican citi"enship to alien &omen marr(ing -mericans ipso facto, &ithout having to submit to an( naturali"ation proceeding and &ithout having to prove that the( possess the special 0ualifications of residence, moral character, adherence to -merican ideals and -merican constitution, provided the( could sho& the( did not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in the -merican $aturali"ation #a&. -ccordingl(, 6e no& hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating other&ise not&ithstanding, that under %ection )> of Common&ealth -ct A,:, an alien &oman marr(ing a !ilipino, nativeC born or naturali"ed, becomes ipso facto a !ilipina provided she is not dis0ualified to be a citi"en of 2hilippines under

%ection A of the same la&. #ike&ise, an alien &oman married to an alien &ho is subse0uentl( naturali"ed here follo&s the 2hilippine citi"enship of her husband the moment takes his oath as !ilipino citi"en, provided that she does not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications under said %ection A. (A) %C 4*4, :>BC:>).) 6ithal, the Court also held that it is not necessar( for alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en to resort to the procedure naturali"ation cases before she can be declared a citi"en reason of her marriage 6e further added1 The 0uestion that keeps bouncing back as a conse0uence of the foregoing vie&s is, &hat substitute is there for naturali"ation proceedings to enable the alien &ife of a 2hilippine citi"en to have the matter of her o&n, citi"enship settled and established so that she ma( not have to be called upon to prove it ever(time she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or e.ercise right reserved onl( to !ilipinosD The read( ans&er to such 0uestion is that as the la&s of our countr(, both substantive and procedural stand toda(, there is no such procedure, but such paucit( is no proof that the citi"enship under discussion is not vested as of the date marriage or the husbandEs ac0uisition of citi"enship, as the case ma( be, for the truth is that the same situation obtains even as to native born !ilipinos. Ever(time the citi"enship of a person is material or indispensable in a 7udicial or administrative case, &hatever the corresponding court or

administrative authorit( decides therein as to such citi"enship is generall( not considered as res ad'udicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion ma( demand. This, as &e vie& it, is the sense in &hich Justice Gi"on referred to =appropriate proceeding= in Brito v. Co66issioner, supra. 9ndeed, onl( the good sense and 7udgment of those subse0uentl( in0uiring into the matter ma( make the effort easier or simpler for the persons concerned b( rel(ing someho& on the antecedent official findings, even if these are not reall( binding. 9t ma( not be amiss to suggest, ho&ever, that in order to have good starting point and so that the most immediate relevant public records ma( be kept in order, the follo&ing observations in pinion $o. :+, series of )*>+, of then -cting %ecretar( of Justice Jesus F. /arrera, ma( be considered as the most appropriate initial step b( the interested parties1 ERegarding the steps that should be taken b( an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en in order to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship, the procedure follo&ed in the /ureau of 9mmigration is as follo&s1 The alien &oman must file a

petition for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration alleging, among other things, that she is married to a !ilipino citi"en and that she is not dis0ualified from ac0uiring her husbandEs citi"enship pursuant to section A of Common&ealt h -ct $o. A,:, as amended. ?pon the filing of said petition, &hich should be accompanied or supported b( the 7oint affidavit of the petitioner and her !ilipino husband to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to an( of the groups dis0ualified b( the cited section from becoming naturali"ed !ilipino citi"en (please see attached CE/ !orm )), the /ureau of 9mmigration conducts an investigation and thereafter promulgates its order or decision

granting den(ing petition.E

or the

99 -t the same time, it ma( not be amiss to clarif( a matter related to the point involved in this case, &hich has given to a certain degree of confusion and unnecessar( difficulties on the part of all concerned. 6e deem it &ise to deal &ith it here in order to preclude unnecessar( litigations, not to speak of legal complications that ma( ensue as a conse0uence of the lack of finalit( of 7udicial or administrative determinations on personEs citi"enship in certain cases. Heretofore up to 'o( @a #im @ao, it has been the constant doctrine of this Court, that a final and e.ecutor( decision the 0uestion of citi"enship, b( a court other than in naturali"ation proceedings, or b( an administrative bod(, generall( not considered binding in other cases and for other purpose than that specificall( involved in the case &here such decision is rendered. Thus for instance, in a case involving the determination of the citi"enship of a part( as a prere0uisite to the e.ercise of a license, franchise or privilege, such as operation of a public utilit(, and &here the administration agenc( concerned shall have found as an established fact to the applicant is a !ilipino citi"en, even if such finding, ma( have been affirmed b( this Court on appeal, the same &ill be considered as conclusive on the 0uestion of such citi"enship. Hence if such part( should appl( for a license to engage in retail trade or for the lease or purchase of an( disposable lands of the public domain, the 0uestion of his citi"enship ma( litigated again. ?nderstandabl( such a result is unfair to the part( concerned. 9nstead of according finalit( and stabilit( 7udicial or administrative decisions, it engenders confusion and multiplicit( of suits. Certainl( if the decision of the administrative agenc( on the matter of citi"enship, as an important issue involved in the case, is affirmed b( this Court, 6e find no cogent reason &h( such decision on the matter can not be given preclusive effect. 6e have conceded the authorit( of certain

nce the Commissioner of 9mmigration cancels the sub7ectEs registration as an alien, there &ill probabl( be less difficult( in establishing her !ilipino citi"enship in an( other proceeding, depending naturall( on the substance and vigor of the opposition.= . -s alread( stated, it is the vie& of the ma7orit( of the Court that insofar as the decision in the case at bar conflicts &ith the above rulings laid do&n in 'o( @a #im @ao, it should be reconsidered and modified. Truth to tell, 6e can hardl( do other&ise. -s ma( be gathered from the opinion &ritten for the Court b( Justice /arredo in that case, the Court not onl( made reference to but actuall( sustained man( of the arguments advanced in the motion for reconsideration of herein appellee as &ell as in the memorandum submitted b( the a6ici curiae in this case. The foregoing discussion not&ithstanding, 6e cannot grant petitionerCappelleeEs pra(er for the affirmance of the trial courtEs 7udgment declaring her a !ilipino citi"en. 9t must be noted that the sole and onl( purpose of the petition is to have petitioner declared a !ilipino citi"en. ?nder our la&s there can be no 7udicial action or proceeding for the declaration of the citi"enship of an individual. 9t is as an incident onl( of the ad7udication of the rights of the parties to a controvers(, that the courts ma( pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to, their status. 9n 'o( @a #im @ao, 6e adverted to administrative procedure heretofore follo&ed in the /ureau 9mmigration regarding the steps to be taken b( an alien &oman married to a !ilipino for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration, and thus secure recognition of her status !ilipino citi"en. %uch a procedure could be availed of 2etitioner. Judicial recourse &ould be avoidable to 2etitioner in case of an adverse action b( the 9mmigration Commissioner.

administrative agencies to ascertain the citi"enship of the parties involved in the cases therein, as a matter inherent in or essential to the efficient e.ercise of their po&ers. Recogni"ing the basic premise, that there must be an end to litigations, some authorities recogni"e that administrative rulings or decisions should have res 'udicata or preclusive effect. 9n discussing this point, 2rofessor -llan G. 8estal of the ?niversit( of 9o&a, holds the vie& that1 2reclusive effect ma( or ma( not be given to an administrative ruling depending on a number of factors. 9f the decision is a factual matter and if it has been rendered b( an agenc( &ith factCfinding procedures &hich appro.imate those of a court, then preclusion should obtain.= (8estal 2reclusionLRes Judicata 8ariables1 -d7udicating /odies, >A Feorgeto&n #a& Journal, +>,, +,A.) bviousl(, if the decision of an administrative agenc( on the 0uestion of citi"enship, is affirmed b( this Court on the ground that the same is supported b( substantial evidence on the &hole record, there appears to be no valid reason &h( such finding should have no conclusive effect in other cases, &here the same issue is involved. The same observation holds true &ith respect to a decision of a court on the matter of citi"enship as a material matter in issue in the case before it, &hich is affirmed b( this Court. !or the =effective operation of courts in the social and economic scheme re0uires that their decision have the respect of and be observed b( the parties, the general public and the courts themselves. -ccording insufficient &eight to prior decisions encourages disrespect and disregard of courts and their decisions and invites litigation= (Clear, Res Judicata Ree.amined, >, @ale #a& Journal, :A>). 9t must be stressed ho&ever that in the public interest, in such cases, the %olicitor Feneral or his authori"ed representative should be allo&ed to intervene on behalf of the Republic of the 2hilippines, and to take appropriate steps the premises. !or onl( in that manner can there be assurance that the claim to !ilipino citi"enship &as thoroughl( threshed out before the corresponding court or administration agenc(.

-ccordingl(, in response to the vigorous and able plea of a6ici curiae, 6e declare it to be a sound rule, that &here citi"enship of a part( in a case is definitel( resolved b( a court or b( an administrative agenc(, as a material issue in controvers(, after a fullCblo&n hearing, &ith the act participation of the %olicitor Feneral or his authorit( representative, and this finding on the Citi"enship of the part( is affirmed b( this Court, the decision on the matter sho&s constitute conclusive proof of such personEs citi"enship, in a other case or proceeding. /ut it is made clear that in instance &ill a decision on the 0uestion of citi"enship in such cases be considered conclusive or binding in an( other case proceeding, unless obtained in accordance &ith the procedure herein stated. 9n resume, therefore, since ur opinion in the decision Januar( :B, )*5,, re0uiring an alien &oman married to !ilipino &ho desires to be a citi"en of this Countr(, to submit a 7udicial proceeding in all respects similar to a naturali"ation case, &herein in addition, she has to prove not onl( that she not laboring under an( of the dis0ualifications under section but also possesses all the 0ualifications set forth in section 4 of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, conflicts &ith ur ruling 'o( @a #im @ao, the decision has to that e.tent be consider modified. 1 6e cannot, ho&ever, affirm petitionerEs claim !ilipino citi"enship in these proceedings. That is a matter &hich in accordance &ith ur suggestion in 'o( @a #im @ao the appropriate governmental agenc(, such as the Commissioner on 9mmigration, shall have to pass upon. 9$ 89E6 6HERE !, and consistentl( &ith the foregoing opinion, the decision herein of Januar( :B, )*5, is hereb( modified3 the reversal of the decision of the court a 0uo and the dismissal of the petition, are ho&ever affirmed, &ithout pre7udice to petitionerEs availing of the procedure indicated above. $o costs. +a:alintal, Castro, Teehan:ee and JJ., concur. sguerra,

,aldivar, J., concurs in line with the view he e5pressed in @ap vs. %epu*lic, L7A3B1C. $ernando and Barredo, JJ., too: no part. +a:asiar, J., concurs in the result, *ut dissents and votes to 6aintain the decision sought to *e reconsidered for the reason therein stated. Republic SU RE'E 'anila E$ /-$C of the 2hilippines COURT

=restraining the latter andLor his authori"ed representative from ordering plaintiff #au @uen @eung to leave the 2hilippines and causing her arrest and deportation and the confiscation of her bond, upon her failure to do so.= The pra(er for preliminar( in7unction embodied in the complaint, having been denied, the case &as heard on the merits and the parties submitted their respective evidence. The facts of the case, as substantiall( and correctl( stated b( the %olicitor Feneral are these1 n !ebruar( +, )*5), #au @uen @eung applied for a passport visa to enter the 2hilippines as a nonC immigrant. 9n the interrogation made in connection &ith her application for a temporar( visitorEs visa to enter the 2hilippines, she stated that she &as a Chinese residing at No&loon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the 2hilippines to visit her great

G.R. No. L-212&9 O/<o34+ ;, 19@1 'OY YA LI' YAO (l-(s E"ILBERTO AGUINAL"O LI' (.6 LAU YUEN YEUNG, petitionersCappellants, vs. THE CO''ISSIONER OF I''IGRATION, respondentCappellee. Aruego, +a6aril & Associates for petitioners7 appellants. Office of the "olicitor 8eneral Arturo A. Alafri), Assistant "olicitor 8eneral $rine4 C. ,a*allero and "olicitor "u6ilang D. Bernardo for respondent7appellee.

BARRE"O, J.: -ppeal from the follo&ing decision of the Court of !irst 9nstance of 'anila in its Civil Case $o. A*,B> entitled +o. @a Li6 @ao, etc., et al. vs. The Co66issioner of !66igration &hich, brief as it is, sufficientl( depicts the factual setting of and the fundamental issues involved in this case thus1 9n the instant case, petitioners seek the issuance of a &rit of in7unction against the Commissioner of 9mmigration,

(grand) uncle #au Ching 2ing for a period of one month (E.hibits =l,= =)C a,= and =4=). %he &as permitted to come into the 2hilippines on 'arch ):, )*5), and &as permitted to sta( for a period of one month &hich &ould e.pire on -pril ):, )*5). n the date of her arrival, -sher @, Cheng filed a bond in the amount of 2),BBB.BB to undertake, among others that said #au @uen @eung &ould actuall( depart from the 2hilippines on or before the e.piration of her authori"ed period of sta( in this countr( or &ithin the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of 9mmigration or his authori"ed representative might properl( allo&. -fter repeated e.tensions, petitioner #au @uen @eung &as allo&ed to sta( in the

2hilippines up to !ebruar( ):, )*54 (E.hibit =A=). n Januar( 4>, )*54, she contracted marriage &ith 'o( @a #im @ao alias Edilberto -guinaldo #im an alleged !ilipino citi"en. /ecause of the contemplated action of respondent to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate deportation, after the e.piration of her authori"ed sta(, she brought this action for in7unction &ith preliminar( in7unction. -t the hearing &hich took place one and a half (ears after her arrival, it &as admitted that petitioner #au @uen @eung could not &rite either English or Tagalog. E.cept for a fe& &ords, she could not speak either English or Tagalog. %he could not name an( !ilipino neighbor, &ith

a !ilipino name e.cept one, Rosa. %he did not kno& the names of her brothersCinC la&, or sistersC inCla&. ?nder the facts unfolded above, the Court is of the considered opinion, and so holds, that the instant petition for in7unction cannot be sustained for the same reason as set forth in the rder of this Court, dated 'arch )*, )*54, the pertinent portions of &hich read1 !irst, %ection )> of the Revised $aturali"ation #a& provides1 ffect of the naturali)ation on wife and children. H -n( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines. The aboveC0uoted provision is clear and its import une0uivocal and hence it should be held to mean &hat it plainl( and e.plicitl( e.presses in unmistakable terms. The clause =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= incontestabl( implies that an

alien &oman ma( be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines b( virtue of her marriage to a !ilipino citi"en onl. if she possesses all the (ualifications and none of the dis(ualifications specified in the law, because these are the e.plicit re0uisites provided b( la& for an alien to be naturali"ed. (#ee %uan -(, -lberto Tan and #ee Chiao vs. Emilio Falang, etc., F. R. $o. #C))+>>). Ho&ever, from the allegation of paragraph : of the complaint, to &it1 :. That plaintiff #au @uen @eung, Chinese b( birth, &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed as a !ilipino citi"en (not being dis0ualified to become such b( naturali"ation), is a !ilipino citi"en b( virtue of her marriage on Januar( 4>, )*54 to plaintiff ' @ @- #9' @alias EG9#/ERT -F?9$-#G #9', under the $aturali"ation #a&s of the 2hilippines. it can be deduced be(ond debate that petitioner #au @uen @eung &hile claiming not to be dis0ualified, does not and cannot allege that she possesses all the

0ualifications to be naturali"ed, naturall( because, having been admitted as a temporar( visitor onl( on 'arch ):, )*5), it is obvious at once that she lacks at least, the re0uisite length of residence in the 2hilippines (Revised $aturali"ation #a&, %ec. 4, Case $o. 4, %ec. :, Case $o. :). 6ere if the intention of the la& that the alien &oman, to be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines b( virtue of marriage to a !ilipino citi"en, need onl( be not dis0ualified under the $aturali"ation #a&, it &ould have been &orded =and &ho herself is not dis0ualified to become a citi"en of the 2hilippines.= %econd, #au @uen @eung, a temporar( Chinese &oman visitor, &hose authori"ed sta( in the 2hilippines, after repeated e.tensions thereof, &as to e.pire last !ebruar( 4+, )*54, having married her coC plaintiff onl( on Januar( 4>, )*54, or 7ust a little over one month before the e.pir( date of her sta(, it is evident that said marriage &as effected merel( for convenience to defeat or avoid her then impending compulsor( departure, not to sa( deportation. This cannot be permitted.

Third, as the %olicitor Feneral has &ell stated1 >. That petitioner #au @uen @eung, having been admitted as a temporar( alien visitor on the strength of a deliberate and voluntar( representation that she &ill enter and sta( onl( for a period of one month and thereb( secured a visa, cannot go back on her representation to sta( permanentl( &ithout first departing from the 2hilippines as she had promised. (Chung Tiao /ing, et al. vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, F. R. $o. #C **55, %eptember 4*, )*>53 ng %e #un vs. /oard of Commissioner s, F. R. $o. #C 5B),, %eptember )5, )*>A3 %ec. *, last par., 2hil. 9mmigration #a&). The afore0uoted argument of the %olicitor Feneral is &ell buttressed not onl( b( the

decided cases of the %upreme Court on the point mentioned above, but also on the ver( provisions of %ection *, subC paragraph (g) of the 2hilippine 9mmigration -ct of )*AB &hich reads1 -n alien &ho is admitted as a nonCimmigrant cannot remain in the 2hilippines permanentl(. To obtain permanent admission, a nonCimmigrant alien must depart voluntaril( to some foreign countr( and procure from the appropriate 2hilippine Consul the proper visa and thereafter undergo e.amination b( the fficers of the /ureau of 9mmigration at a 2hilippine port of entr( for determination of his admissibilit( in accordance &ith the re0uirements of this -ct. (This paragraph is added b( Republic -ct >B:). (%ec. *, subparagraph (g) of the 2hilippine

9mmigration -ct of )*AB). -nd fourth, respondent Commissioner of 9mmigration is charged &ith the administration of all la&s relating to immigration (%ec. :, Com. -ct $o. 5):) and in the performance of his duties in relation to alien immigrants, the la& gives the Commissioner of 9mmigration a &ide discretion, a 0uasiC 7udicial function in determining cases presented to him (2edro ?( %o vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration C-CF. R. $o. 4:::5CR, Gec. )>, )*5B), so that his decision thereon ma( not be disturbed unless he acted &ith abuse of discretion or in e.cess of his 7urisdiction. 9t ma( also be not amiss to state that &ife #au @uen @eung, &hile she barel( and insufficientl( talk in broken Tagalog and English, she admitted that she cannot &rite either language. The onl( matter of fact not clearl( passed upon b( His Honor &hich could have some bearing in the resolution of this appeal is the allegation in the brief of petitionersCappellants, not denied in the governments brief, that =in the hearing ..., it &as sho&n thru the testimon( of the plaintiff #au @uen @eung that she does not possess an( of the dis0ualifications for naturali"ation.= f course, as an additional someho& relevant factual matter, it is also emphasi"ed b( said appellants that during the hearing in the lo&er court, held almost ten months after the alleged marriage of petitioners, =#au @uen @eung &as alread( carr(ing in her &omb for seven months a child b( her husband.= -ppellants have assigned si. errors allegedl( committed b( the court a (uo, thus1

9 THE # 6ER C ?RT ERREG 9$ H #G9$F TH-T THE C#-?%E =6H '9FHT HER%E#! /E #-6!?##@ $-T?R-#9JEG= ( ! %ECT9 $ )>, RE89%EG $-T?R-#9J-T9 $ #-6) 9$C $TE%T-/#@ 9'2#9E% TH-T -$ -#9E$ 6 '-$ '-@ /E GEE'EG - C9T9JE$ ! THE 2H9#9229$E% /@ 89RT?E ! HER '-RR9-FE T - !9#929$ C9T9JE$, $#@ 9! %HE 2 %%E%%E% -## THE I?-#9!9C-T9 $% -$G $ $E ! THE G9%I?-#9!9C-T9 $% %2EC9!9EG 9$ THE #-6. 99 THE # 6ER C ?RT ERREG 9$ H #G9$F TH-T 6 '-$ ! RE9F$ER 6H G E% $ T 2 %%E%% -$@ ! THE G9%I?-#9!9C-T9 $% ! R C9T9JE$%H92 -$G 6H '-RR9EG !9#929$ C9T9JE$ 9% %T9## C $%9GEREG -$ -#9E$ E8E$ -!TER %?CH '-RR9-FE -% T !-## 69TH9$ THE REI?9RE'E$T ! %ECT9 $ *, %?/C 2-R-FR-2H (*) ! THE 2H9#9229$E 9''9FR-T9 $ -CT ! )*AB. 999 THE C ?RT ERREG 9$ C $C#?G9$F TH-T #-? @?E$ @E?$FE% '-RR9-FE T - !9#929$ C9T9JE$ 6-% $#@ ! R C $8E$9E$CE, 'ERE#@ /EC-?%E THE %-'E 6-% CE#E/R-TEG J?%T 8ER - ' $TH /E! RE THE EM29R@ G-TE

! HER %T-@. 98

-?TH R9JEG

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

6e need not discuss these assigned errors separatel(. 9n effect, the above decision upheld the t&o main grounds of ob7ection of the %olicitor Feneral to the petition in the court belo&, vi)1 That petitioner #au @uen @eung, having been admitted as a temporar( alien visitor on the strength of a deliberate and voluntar( representation that she &ill enter and sta( onl( for a period of one month and thereb( secured a visa, cannot go back on her representation to sta( permanentl( &ithout first departing from the 2hilippines as she had promised. (Chung Tiao /ing, et al. vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, F.R. $o. #C**55, %eptember 4*, )*>53 ng %e #un vs. /oard of Commissioners, F.R. $o. #C5B),, %ept. )5, )*>A, %ec. *, last par. 2hil. 9mmigration #a&)3 That the mere marriage of a !ilipino citi"en to an alien does not automaticall( confer on the latter 2hilippine citi"enship. The alien &ife must possess all the 0ualifications re0uired b( la& to become a !ilipino citi"en b( naturali"ation and none of the dis0ualifications. (#ee %uan -(, -lberto Tan and #ee Chiao vs. Falang, etc., F. R. $o. #C))+>>, Gec. 4>, )*>*) 9t is obvious from the nature of these ob7ection that their proper resolution &ould necessaril( cover all the points raised in appellantsE assignments of error, hence, 6e &ill base our discussions, more or less, on said ob7ections. 9 The first ob7ection of the %olicitor Feneral &hich covers the matters dealt &ith in

appellantsE second and fourth assignments of error does not re0uire an( length( discussion. -s a matter of fact, it seem evident that the %olicitor FeneralEs pose that an alien &ho has been admitted into the 2hilippines as a nonC immigrant cannot remain here permanentl( unless he voluntaril( leaves the countr( first and goes to a foreign countr( to secure thereat from the appropriate 2hilippine consul the proper visa and thereafter undergo e.amination b( officers of the /ureau of 9mmigration at a 2hilippine port of entr( for determination of his admissibilit( in accordance &ith the re0uirements of the 2hilippine 9mmigration -ct of )*AB, as amended b( Republic -ct >B:, is premised on the assumption that petitioner #au @uen @eung is not a !ilipino citi"en. 6e note the same line of reasoning in the appealed decision of the court a (uo. -ccordingl(, it is but safe to assume that &ere the %olicitor Feneral and His Honor of the vie& that said petitioner had become ipso facto a !ilipina b( virtue of her marriage to her !ilipino husband, the( &ould have held her as entitled to assume the status of a permanent resident &ithout having to depart as re0uired of aliens b( %ection * (g) of the la&. 9n an( event, to set this point at rest, 6e hereb( hold that portion of %ection * (g) of the 9mmigration -ct providing1 -n alien &ho is admitted as a nonCimmigrant cannot remain in the 2hilippines permanentl(. To obtain permanent admission, a nonCimmigrant alien must depart voluntaril( to some foreign countr( and procure from the appropriate 2hilippine consul the proper visa and thereafter undergo e.amination b( the officers of the /ureau of 9mmigration at a 2hilippine port of entr( for determination of his admissibilit( in accordance &ith the re0uirements of this -ct. does not appl( to aliens &ho after coming into the 2hilippines as temporar( visitors,

legitimatel( become !ilipino citi"ens or ac0uire !ilipino citi"enship. %uch change of nationalit( naturall( besto&s upon their the right to sta( in the 2hilippines permanentl( or not, as the( ma( choose, and if the( elect to reside here, the immigration authorities ma( neither deport them nor confiscate their bonds. True it is that this Court has vehementl( e.pressed disapproval of convenient ruses emplo(ed b( alien to convert their status from temporar( visitors to permanent residents in circumvention of the procedure prescribed b( the legal provision alread( mentioned, such as in Chiong Tiao Bing vs. Co66issioner of !66igration , ** 2hil. )B4B, &herein, thru 'r. Justice J./.#. Re(es, the Court, reiterating the ruling in Ong "e Lun vs. Board of !66igration Co66issioners, *> 2'9. ,+>, said1 ... 9t is clear that if an alien gains admission to the 9slands on the strength of a deliberate and voluntar( representation that he &ill enter onl( for a limited time, and thereb( secures the benefit of a temporar( visa, the la& &ill not allo& him subse0uentl( to go back on his representation and sta( permanentl(, &ithout first departing from the 2hilippines as he had promised. $o officer can relieve him of the departure re0uirements of section * of the 9mmigration -ct, under the guise of =change= or =correction=, for the la& makes no distinctions, and no officer is above the la&. -n( other ruling &ould, as stated in our previous decision, encourage aliens to enter the 9slands on false pretences3 ever( alien so permitted to enter for a limited time, might then claim a right to permanent admission, ho&ever flims( such claim should be, and thereb( compel our government to spend time, mone( and effort to e.amining and verif(ing &hether or not

ever( such alien reall( has a right to take up permanent residence here. 9n the mean&hile, the alien &ould be able to prolong his sta( and evade his return to the port &hence he came, contrar( to &hat he promised to do &hen he entered. The damages inherent in such ruling are selfC evident. n the other hand, ho&ever, 6e cannot see an( reason &h( an alien &ho has been here as a temporar( visitor but &ho has in the mean&hile become a !ilipino should be re0uired to still leave the 2hilippines for a foreign countr(, onl( to appl( thereat for a reC entr( here and undergo the process of sho&ing that he is entitled to come back, &hen after all, such right has become incontestible as a necessar( concomitant of his assumption of our nationalit( b( &hatever legal means this has been conferred upon him. Consider for e.ample, precisel( the case of the minor children of an alien &ho is naturali"ed. 9t is indubitable that the( become ipso facto citi"ens of the 2hilippines. Could it be the la& that before the( can be allo&ed permanent residence, the( still have to be taken abroad so that the( ma( be processed to determine &hether or not the( have a right to have permanent residence hereD The difficulties and hardships &hich such a re0uirement entails and its seeming unreasonableness argue against such a rather absurd construction. 9ndeed, as earl( as )*>,, in L. 8io: Ha vs. 8alang, )B) 2hil. A>*, 'r. Justice Concepcion, our present Chief Justice, alread( ruled thus1 ... (2)etitioners allege that, upon her marriage to a !ilipino, #( Fiok Ha became also a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 9ndeed, if this conclusion &ere correct, it &ould follo& that, in conse0uence of her marriage, she had been naturali"ed as such citi"en, and, hence the decision appealed from &ould have to be affirmed, for

section AB(c) of Common&ealth -ct 5): provides that =in the event of the naturali"ation as a 2hilippine citi"en ... of the alien on &hose behalf the bond deposit is given, the *ond shall *e cancelled or the su6 deposited shall *e returned to the depositor or his legal representative.= (-t. pp. A54CA5:) 9n other &ords, the applicable statute itself more than implies that the naturali"ation of an alien visitor as a 2hilippine citi"en logicall( produces the effect of conferring upon him ipso facto all the rights of citi"enship including that of being entitled to permanentl( sta( in the 2hilippines outside the orbit of authorit( of the Commissioner of 9mmigration visCaCvis aliens, if onl( because b( its ver( nature and e.press provisions, the 9mmigration #a& is a la& onl( for aliens and is inapplicable to citi"ens of the 2hilippines. 9n the sense thus discussed therefore, appellantsE second and fourth assignments of error are &ell taken. 99 2recisel(, the second ob7ection, of the %olicitor Feneral sustained b( the trial 7udge is that appellant #au @uen @eungEs marriage to appellant 'o(a #im @ao alias Edilberto -guinaldo &hose !ilipino citi"enship is not denied did not have the effect of making her a !ilipino, since it has not been sho&n that she =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed,= it appearing clearl( in the record that she does not possess all the 0ualifications re0uired of applicants for naturali"ation b( the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, Common&ealth -ct A,:, even if she has proven that she does not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications thereunder. 9n other &ords, the %olicitor Feneral implicitl( concedes that had it been established in the proceedings belo& that appellant #au @uen @eung possesses all the 0ualifications re0uired b( the la& of applicants for naturali"ation, she &ould have been recogni"ed b( the respondent as a !ilipino citi"en in the instant case, &ithout re0uiring

her to submit to the usual proceedings for naturali"ation. To be sure, this position of the %olicitor Feneral is in accord &ith &hat used to be the vie& of this Court since Lee "uan A., et al. v. 6ilio 8alang, etc., et al., F.R. $o. #C))+>>, promulgated Gecember 4:, )*>*, )B5 2hil., ,B5,,):, 1 for it &as onl( in ,ita Ngo Burca vs. %epu*lic, F.R. $ . #C4A4>4 &hich &as promulgated on Januar( :B, )*5, ()* %CR)+5), that over the pen of 'r. Justice Conrado %anche", this Court held that for an alien &oman &ho marries a !ilipino to be deemed a !ilipina, she has to appl( for naturali"ation in accordance &ith the procedure prescribed b( the Revised $aturali"ation #a& and prove in said naturali"ation proceeding not onl( that she has all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications provided in the la& but also that she has complied &ith all the formalities re0uired thereb( like an( other applicant for naturali"ation, 2 albeit said decision is not (et part of our 7urisprudence inasmuch as the motion for its reconsideration is still pending resolution. -ppellants are in effect urging ?s, ho&ever, in their first and second assignments of error, not onl( to reconsider Burca but to even ree.amine #ee %uan -( &hich, as a matter of fact, is the prevailing rule, having been reiterated in all subse0uent decisions up to Fo 9m T(. 3 -ctuall(, the first case in &hich %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a&, Common&ealth -ct A,:, under&ent 7udicial construction &as in the first #( Fiok Ha case, ; one almost identical to the one at bar. #( Fiok Ha, a &oman of Chinese nationalit(, &as a temporar( visitor here &hose authorit( to sta( &as to e.pire on 'arch )A, )*>5. %he filed a bond to guarant( her timel( departure. n 'arch +, )*>5, eight da(s before the e.piration of her authorit( to sta(, she married a !ilipino b( the name of Restituto #acasta. n 'arch *, )*>5, her husband notified the Commissioner of 9mmigration of said marriage and, contending that his &ife had become a !ilipina b( reason of said marriage, demanded for the cancellation of her bond, but instead of acceding to such re0uest, the Commissioner re0uired her to leave, and upon her failure to do so, on 'arch )5, )*>5,

the Commissioner confiscated her bond3 a suit &as filed for the recover( of the bond3 the lo&er court sustained her contention that she had no obligation to leave, because she had become !ilipina b( marriage, hence her bond should be returned. The Commissioner appealed to this Court. 9n the said appeal, 'r. Justice Roberto Concepcion, our present Chief Justice, spoke for the Court, thus1 The ne.t and most important 0uestion for determination is &hether her marriage to a !ilipino 7ustified or, at least, e.cused the aforesaid failure of #( Fiok Ha to depart from the 2hilippines on or before 'arch )A, )*>5. 9n maintaining the affirmative vie&, petitioners alleged that, upon her marriage to a !ilipino, #( Fiok Ha became, also, a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 9ndeed, if this conclusion &ere correct, it &ould follo& that, in conse0uence of her marriage, she had been naturali"ed as such citi"en, and, hence, the decision appealed from &ould have to be affirmed, for section AB(c) of Common&ealth -ct $o. 5): provides that =in the event of the naturali"ation as a 2hilippine citi"en ... of the alien on &hose behalf the bond deposit is given, the bond shall be cancelled or the sum deposited shall be returned to the depositor or his legal representative.= Thus the issue boils do&n to &hether an alien female &ho marries a male citi"en of the 2hilippines follo&s ipso facto his political status. The pertinent part of section )> of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, upon &hich petitioners rel(, reads1

-n( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines. -ursuant thereto, 6arriage to a 6ale $ilipino does not vest -hilippine citi)enship to his foreign wife, unless she <herself 6a. *e lawfull. naturali)ed.< As correctl. held in an opinion of the "ecretar. of Justice ( p. $o. >4, series of )*>B),B this li6itation of section /2 e5cludes, fro6 the *enefits of naturali)ation *. 6arriage, those dis(ualified fro6 *eing naturali)ed as citi"ens of the 2hilippines under section A of said Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, na6el.1 (a) 2ersons opposed to organi"ed government or affiliated &ith an( association or group of persons &ho uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organi"ed governments3 (b) 2ersons defending or teaching the necessit( or propriet( of

violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas3 (c) 2ol(gamists or believers in the practice of pol(gam(3 (d) 2ersons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude3 (e) 2ersons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases3 (f) 2ersons &ho, during the period of their residence in the 2hilippines, have not mingled sociall( &ith the !ilipinos, or &ho have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the !ilipinos3 (g) Citi"ens or sub7ects of nations &ith &hom the ... 2hilippines are

at &ar, during the period of such &ar3 (h) Citi"ens or sub7ects of a foreign countr( other than the ?nited %tates, &hose la&s does not grant !ilipinos the right to become naturali"ed citi"ens or sub7ects thereof. 9n the case at bar, there is neither proof nor allegation in the pleadings that #( Fiok Ha does not fall under an( of the classes dis0ualified b( la&. 'oreover, as the parties &ho claim that, despite her failure to depart from the 2hilippines &ithin the period specified in the bond in 0uestion, there has been no breach thereof, petitioners have the burden of proving her alleged change of political status, from alien to citi"en. %trictl( speaking, petitioners have not made out, therefore a case against the respondentsCappellants. Considering, ho&ever, that neither in the administrative proceedings, nor in the lo&er court, had the parties seemingl( felt that there &as an issue on &hether #( Fiok Ha ma( =be la&full( naturali"ed,= and this being a case of first impression in our courts, &e are of the opinion that, in the interest of e0uit( and 7ustice, the parties herein should be given an opportunit( to introduce evidence, if the(

have an(, on said issue. (-t pp. A54CA5A.) . -s ma( be seen, although not specificall( in so man( &ords, no doubt &as left in the above decision as regards the follo&ing propositions1 . ). That under %ection )> of Common&ealth -ct A,:, the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, the marriage of an alien &oman to a !ilipino makes her a !ilipina, if she =herself might be la&full( naturali"ed=3 4. That this Court declared as correct the opinion of the %ecretar( of Justice that the limitation of %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a& e.cludes from the benefits of naturali"ation b( marriage, onl( those dis0ualified from being naturali"ed under %ection A of the la& 0outed in the decision3 :. That evidence to the effect that she is not dis0ualified ma( be presented in the action to recover her bond confiscated b( the Commissioner of 9mmigration3 A. That upon proof of such fact, she ma( be recogni"ed as !ilipina3 and >. That in referring to the dis0ualification enumerated in the la&, the Court someho& left the impression that no in0uir( need be made as to 0ualifications, ) speciall( considering that the decision cited and footnotes several opinions of the %ecretar( of Justice, the immediate superior of the Commissioner of 9mmigration, the most important of &hich are the follo&ing1 2aragraph (a), section ): of -ct $o. 4*4,, as amended, (no& section )>, Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:), provided that =an( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines.= - similar provision in the naturali"ation

la& of the ?nited %tates has been construed as not re0uiring the &oman to have the 0ualifications of residence, good character, etc., as in the case of naturali"ation b( 7udicial proceedings, but merel( that she is of the race of persons &ho ma( be naturali"ed. (Nell( v. &en ;Gist. Col. )+5+< , 6all A*5, >!, )), )43 e5 parte Tr(ason ;G. C. 6ash. )*)A< 4)> !. AA*, 4, p. -tt(. Fen. >B,). ( p. $o. )5+, s. )*AB of Justice %ec. Jose -bad %antos.) 9n a previous opinion rendered for (our ffice, 9 stated that the clause =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed=, should be construed as not re0uiring the &oman to have the 0ualifications of residence, good character, etc., as in cases of naturali"ation b( 7udicial proceedings, *ut 6erel. that she is of the race of persons who 6a. *e naturali)ed. ( p. $o. ,*, s. )*AB) 9nasmuch as the race 0ualification has been removed b( the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, it results that an( &oman &ho married a citi"en of the 2hilippines prior to or after June ),, )*:*, and the marriage not having been dissolved, and on the assumption that she possesses none of the dis0ualifications mentioned in %ection A of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, follo&s the citi"enship of her husband. ( p. $o. ),5, s. )*AB of Justice %ec. Jose -bad %antos.)

!rom the foregoing narration of facts, it &ould seem that the onl( material point of in0uir( is as to the citi"enship of -rce 'achura. 9f he shall be found to be a citi"en of the 2hilippines, his &ife, 'rs. #il( James 'achura, shall like&ise be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines pursuant to the provision of %ection )>, Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, &hich reads in part as follo&s1 -n( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines. The phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed=, as contained in the above provision, means that the &oman &ho is married to a !ilipino citi"en must not belong to an( of the dis0ualified classes enumerated in %ection A of the $aturali"ation #a& ( ps., %ec. of Jus., $o. 4+, s. )*>B3 $o. A:, s. )*A+, $o. *>, s. )*A)3 $os. ,* and )5+, s. )*AB). ?nder the facts stated in the &ithin papers, 'rs. 'achura does not appear to be among the dis0ualified classes mentioned in the la&. 9t having been sho&n that -rce 'achura or -rsenio Fuevara &as born as an illegitimate of a !ilipino mother, he should be considered as a citi"en of the

2hilippines in consonance &ith the &ellCsettled rule that an illegitimate child follo&s the citi"enship of his onl( legall( recogni"ed parent, the mother ( p., %ec. of Jus., $os. >+, *+ Q 4+), s. )*A+3 $o. *5, s. )*A*). Her husband being a !ilipino, 'rs. 'achura must necessaril( be deemed as a citi"en of the 2hilippines b( marriage (%ec. )>, Com. -ct $o. A,:.) ( p. $o. >4, s. )*>B of Justice %ec. Ricardo $epomuceno.) The logic and authorit( of these opinions, compelling as the( are, must have so appealed to this Court that five da(s later, on 'a( 44, )*>,, in %icardo Cua v. The Board of Co66issioners, )B) 2hil. >4), 'r. Justice J./.#. Re(es, reiterated the same ruling on the basis of the follo&ing facts1 T7ioe 6u %uan, an 9ndonesian, arrived in 'anila on $ovember ), )*>4, but it turned out that her passport &as forged. n Gecember )B, )*>:, a &arrant &as issued for her arrest for purpose of deportation. #ater, on Gecember 4B, )*>:, she married Ricardo Cua, a !ilipino, and because of said marriage, the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( considered her a !ilipina. ?pon a revie& of the case, ho&ever, the /oard of 9mmigration Commissioners insisted on continuing &ith the deportation proceedings and so, the husband filed prohibition and mandamus proceedings. The lo&er court denied the petition. -lthough this Court affirmed said decision, it held, on the other hand, that1 Franting the validit( of marriage, this Court has ruled in the recent case of L. 8io: Ha v. 8alang, supra, p. A>*, that the bare fact of a valid marriage to a citi"en does not suffice to confer his citi"enship upon the &ife. %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a& re0uires that the alien &oman &ho marries a !ilipino must sho&, in addition, that she

=might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= as a !ilipino citi"en. -s construed in the decision cited, this last condition re(uires proof that the wo6an who 6arried a $ilipino is herself not dis(ualified under section B of the Naturali)ation Law. $o such evidence appearing on record, the claim of assumption of !ilipino citi"enship b( T7ioe 6u %uan, upon her marriage to petitioner, is untenable. The lo&er court, therefore, committed no error in refusing to interfere &ith the deportation proceedings, &here she can an(&a( establish the re0uisites indispensable for her ac0uisition of !ilipino citi"enship, as &ell as the alleged validit( of her 9ndonesian passport. (Ricardo Cua v. The /oard of 9mmigration Commissioners, F. R. $o. #C***,, 'a( 44, )*>,, )B) 2hil. >4), >4:.) ;Emphasis supplied< . !or emphasis, it is reiterated that in the above t&o cases, this Court e.pressl( gave the parties concerned opportunit( to prove the fact that the( &ere not suffering from an( of the dis0ualifications of the la& &ithout the need of undergoing an( 7udicial naturali"ation proceeding. 9t ma( be stated, therefore, that according to the above decisions, the la& in this countr(, on the matter of the effect of marriage of an alien &oman to a !ilipino is that she thereb( becomes a !ilipina, if it can be proven that at the time of such marriage, she does not possess an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in %ection A of the $aturali"ation #a&, &ithout the need of submitting to an( naturali"ation proceedings under said la&. 9t is to be admitted that both of the above decisions made no reference to 0ualifications,

that is, as to &hether or not the( need also to be proved, but, in an( event, it is a fact that the %ecretar( of Justice understood them to mean that such 0ualifications need not be possessed nor proven. Then %ecretar( of Justice Jesus /arrera, &ho later became a distinguished member of this Court, 8 so ruled in opinions rendered b( him subse0uent to #( Fiok Ha, the most illustrative of &hich held1 . -t the outset it is important to note that an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en needs onl( to sho& that she =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= in order to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship. Compliance &ith other conditions of the statute, such as those relating to the 0ualifications of an applicant for naturali"ation through 7udicial proceedings, is not necessar(. (%ee1 #eonard v. Frant, > !ed. ))3 4, ps. -tt(. Fen ;?.%.< >B,3 ps. %ec. of Justice, $o. ,,5, s. )*AB, and $o. ))), s. )*>:. This vie& finds support in the case of L. 8io: Ha et al. v. 8alang et al., F.R. $o. #C )B,5B, promulgated 'a( ),, )*>,, &here the %upreme Court, construing the above0uoted section of the $aturali"ation #a&, held that =marriage to a male !ilipino does not vest 2hilippine citi"enship to his foreign &ife,= unless she =herself ma( be la&full( naturali"ed,= and that =this li6itation of "ection /2 e5cludes, fro6 the *enefits of naturali)ation *. 6arriage, those dis(ualified fro6 *eing naturali)ed as citi)ens of the -hilippines under "ection B of said Co66onwealth Act No. B31.= 9n other &ords, dis0ualification for an( of the causes enumerated in %ection A of the -ct is the decisive

factor that defeats the right of the foreign &ife of a 2hilippine citi"en to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship. ... ... ... Goes petitioner, #im Ning /ian, belong to an( of these groups The Commissioner of 9mmigration does not sa( so but merel( predicates his negative action on the ground that a &arrant of deportation for =oversta(ing= is pending against the petitioner. 6e do not believe the position is &ell taken. %ince the grounds for dis0ualification for naturali"ation are e.pressl( enumerated in the la&, a &arrant of deportation not based on a finding of unfitness to become naturali"ed for an( of those specified causes ma( not be invoked to negate ac0uisition of 2hilippine citi"enship b( a foreign &ife of a 2hilippine citi"en under %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a&. (!nclusio unius est e5clusio alterius) ( p. $o. )4, s. )*>+ of Justice ?ndersec. Jesus F. /arrera.) Regarding the steps that should be taken b( an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en in order to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship, the procedure follo&ed in the /ureau of 9mmigration is as follo&s1 The alien &oman must file a petition for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration alleging, among other things, that she is married to a !ilipino citi"en and that she is not dis0ualified from ac0uiring her husbandEs citi"enship pursuant

to section A of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, as amended. ?pon the filing of said petition, &hich should be accompanied or supported b( the 7oint affidavit of the petitioner and her !ilipino husband to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to an( of the groups dis0ualified b( the cited section from becoming naturali"ed !ilipino citi"en (please see attached CE/ !orm )), the /ureau of 9mmigration conducts an investigation and thereafter promulgates its order or decision granting or den(ing the petition. ( p. $o. :+, s. )*B>+ of Justice %ec. Jesus F. /arrera.) This vie& finds support in the case of #( Fiok Ha et al., v. Falang et al. (F.R. $o. #C )B,5B, promulgated 'a( ),, )*>,), &here the %upreme Court, construing the aboveC 0uoted section in the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, held that =marriage to a male !ilipino does not vest 2hilippine citi"enship to his foreign &ife, unless she herself ma( be la&full( naturali"ed,= and that =this li6itation of "ection /2 e5cludes, fro6 the *enefits of naturali)ation *. 6arriage, those dis(ualified fro6 *eing naturali)ed as citi)ens of the -hilippines under "ection B of said Co66onwealth Act No. B31.= 9n other &ords, dis0ualification for an( of the causes enumerated in section A of the -ct is the decisive factor that defeats the right of an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship. ( p. >,, s. )*>+ of Justice %ec. Jesus F. /arrera.)

The contention is untenable. The doctrine enunciated in the #( Fiok Ha case is not a ne& one. 9n that case, the %upreme Court held that under paragraph 9 of %ection )> f Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, Emarriage to a male !ilipino does not vest 2hilippine citi"enship to his foreign &ife unless she =herself ma( be la&full( naturali"ed=E, and, 0uoting several earlier opinions of the %ecretar( of Justice, namel(1 $o. >4, s. )*>B3 $o. )5+, s. )*AB3 $o. *>, s. )*A)3 $o. 5:, s. )*A+3 $o. 4+. s. )*>B, =this limitation of section )> e.cludes from the benefits of naturali"ation b( marriage, those dis0ualified from being naturali"ed as citi"ens of the 2hilippines under section A of said Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:.= ( p. ):A, s. )*54 of Justice ?ndersec. 'agno %. Fatmaitan.) 9t &as not until more than t&o (ears later that, in one respect, the above construction of the la& &as importantl( modified b( this Court in #ee %uan -(, supra, in &hich the facts &ere as follo&s1 ?pon e.piration of the appellant #ee %uan -(Es authori"ed period of temporar( sta( in the 2hilippines (4> 'arch )*>>), on 45 'arch )*>> the Commissioner of 9mmigration asked the bondsman to present her to the /ureau of 9mmigration &ithin 4A hours from receipt of notice, other&ise the bond &ill be confiscated(-nne. )). !or failure of the bondsman to compl( &ith the foregoing order, on ) -pril )*>>. the Commissioner of 9mmigration ordered the cash bond confiscated (-nne. E).

Therefore, there &as an order issued b( the Commissioner of 9mmigration confiscating or forfeiting the cash bond. ?nlike in forfeiture of bail bonds in criminal proceedings, &here the Court must enter an order forfeiting the bail bond and the bondsman must be given an opportunit( to present his principal or give a satisfactor( reason for his inabilit( to do so, before final 7udgment ma( be entered against the bondsman,(section )>, Rule ))B3 ?.%. v. /onoan, 44 2hil. ).) in forfeiture of bonds posted for the temporar( sta( of an alien in the 2hilippines, no court proceeding is necessar(. nce a breach of the terms and conditions of the undertaking in the bond is committed, the Commissioner of 9mmigration ma(, under the terms and conditions thereof, declare it forfeited in favor of the Fovernment. (9n the mean&hile, on -pril ), )*>>, #ee %uan -( and -lberto Tan, a !ilipino, &ere 7oined in marriage b( the Justice of the 2eace of #as 2iKas, Ri"al.) 'r. Justice %abino 2adilla speaking for a unanimous court &hich included Justices Concepcion and Re(es &ho had penned #( Fiok Ha, and Ricardo Cua, ruled thus1 The fact that #ee %uan -( (a Chinese) &as married to a !ilipino citi"en does not relieve the bondsman from his liabilit( on the bond. The marriage took place on ) -pril )*>>, and the violation of the terms and conditions of the undertaking in the bond H failure to depart from the 2hilippines upon e.piration of her authori"ed period of temporar( sta( in the

2hilippines (4> 'arch )*>>) and failure to report to the Commissioner of 9mmigration &ithin 4A hours from receipt of notice H &ere committed before the marriage. 'oreover, the marriage of a !ilipino citi"en to an alien does not automaticall( confer 2hilippine citi"enship upon the latter. %he must possess the 0ualifications re0uired b( la& to become a !ilipino citi"en b( naturali"ation.B There is no sho&ing that the appellant #ee %uan -( possesses all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications provided for b( la& to become a !ilipino citi"en b( naturali"ation. 2ertinentl( to be noted at once in this ruling, &hich, to be sure, is the one relied upon in the appealed decision no& before ?s, is the fact that the footnote of the statement therein that the alien &ife =must possess the 0ualifications re0uired b( la& to become a !ilipino citi"en b( naturali"ation= makes reference to %ection )>, Common&ealth -ct A,: and precisel(, also to L. 8io: Ha v. 8alang, supra . -s &ill be recalled, on the other hand, in the opinions of the %ecretar( of Justice e.plicitl( adopted b( the Court in #( Fiok Ha, among them, pinion $o. ),5, %eries of )*AB, aboveC0uoted, it &as clearl( held that =(9)n a previous opinion rendered for (our ffice, 9 stated that the clause =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed=, should be construed as not re0uiring the &oman to have the 0ualifications of residence, good character, etc., as in cases of naturali"ation b( 7udicial proceedings *ut 6erel. that she is of the race *. persons who 6a. *e naturali)ed . ( p. $o. ,*, s. )*AB) %ince Justice 2adilla gave no reason at all for the obviousl( significant modification of the construction of the la&, it could be said that there &as need for clarification of the seemingl( ne& posture of the Court. The occasion for such clarification should have been in Eua "u., etc., et al. vs. The Co66issioner of !66igration, F.R. $o. #C ):,*B, ctober :), )*5:, penned b( 'r.

Justice J./.#. Re(es, &ho had rendered the opinion in Ricardo Cua, supra, &hich follo&ed that in #( Fiok Ha, supra, but apparentl( seeing no immediate relevanc( in the case on hand then of the particular point in issue no&, since it &as not s0uarel( raised therein similarl( as in #ee %uan -(, hence, an(thing said on the said matter &ould at best be no more than o*iter dictu6, Justice Re(es limited himself to holding that =?nder %ection )> of the $aturali"ation -ct, the &ife is deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines onl( if she =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed,= so that the fact of marriage to a citi"en, b( itself alone, does not suffice to confer citi"enship, as this Court has previousl( ruled in #( Fiok Ha v. Falang, >A .F. :>5, and in Cua v. /oard of 9mmigration Commissioners, >: .F. +>5,3 and there is here no evidence of record as to the 0ualifications or absence of dis0ualifications of appellee Nua %u(=, &ithout e.plaining the apparent departure alread( pointed out from #( Fiok Ha and Ricardo Cua. Even Justice 'akalintal, &ho &rote a separate concurring and dissenting opinion merel( lumped together #( Fiok Ha, Ricardo Cua and #ee %uan -( and opined that both 0ualifications and nonCdis0ualifications have to be sho&n &ithout elucidating on &hat seemed to be departure from the said first t&o decisions. 9t &as onl( on $ovember :B, )*5: that to 'r. Justice Roberto Regala fell the task of rationali"ing the CourtEs position. 9n Lo "an Tuang v. 8alang, F.R. $o. #C)+,,>, $ovember :B, )*5:, * %CR- 5:+, the facts &ere simpl( these1 #o %an Tuang, a Chinese &oman, arrived in the 2hilippines on Jul( ), )*5B as a temporar( visitor &ith authorit( to sta( up to June :B, )*5). %he married a !ilipino on Januar( ,, )*5), almost si. months before the e.pir( date of her permit, and &hen she &as re0uested to leave after her authorit( to sta( had e.pired, she refused to do so, claiming she had become a !ilipina b( marriage, and to bolster her position, she submitted an affidavit stating e.plicitl( that she does not possess an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in the $aturali"ation #a&, Common&ealth -ct A,:. 6hen the case reached the court, the trial 7udge held for the government that in addition to not having an(

of the dis0ualifications referred to, there &as need that #o %an Tuang should have also possessed all the 0ualifications of residence, moral character, kno&ledge of a native principal dialect, etc., provided b( the la&. Recogni"ing that the issue s0uarel( to be passed upon &as &hether or not the possession of all the 0ualifications &ere indeed needed to be sho&n apart from nonC dis0ualification, Justice Regala held affirmativel( for the Court, reasoning out thus1 . 9t is to be noted that the petitioner has anchored her claim for citi"enship on the basis of the decision laid do&n in the case of #eonard v. Frant, > %&(. 5B:, > ! )), &here the Circuit Court of regon held that it &as onl( necessar( that the &oman =should be a person of the class or race permitted to be naturali"ed b( e.isting la&s, and that in respect of the 0ualifications arising out of her conduct or opinions, being the &ife of a citi"en, she is to be regarded as 0ualified for citi"enship, and therefore considered a citi"en.= (9n e.planation of its conclusion, the Court said1 =9f, &henever during the life of the &oman or after&ards, the 0uestion of her citi"enship arises in a legal proceeding, the part( asserting her citi"enship b( reason of her marriage &ith a citi"en must not onl( prove such marriage, but also that the &oman then possessed all the further 0ualifications necessar( to her becoming naturali"ed under e.isting la&s, the statute &ill be practicall( nugator(, if not a delusion and a share. The proof of the facts ma( have e.isted at the time of the marriage, but (ears after, &hen a controvers( arises

upon the sub7ect, it ma( be lost or difficult to find.=) 9n other &ords, all that she &as re0uired to prove &as that she &as a free &hite &oman or a &oman of -frican descent or nativit(, in order to be deemed an -merican citi"en, because, &ith respect to the rest of the 0ualifications on residence, moral character, etc., she &as presumed to be 0ualified. #ike the la& in the ?nited %tates, our former $aturali"ation #a& (-ct $o. 4*4,, as amended b( -ct $o. :AA+) specified the classes of persons &ho alone might become citi"ens of the 2hilippines, even as it provided &ho &ere dis0ualified. Thus, the pertinent provisions of that la& provided1 %ection ). Fho 6a. *eco6e -hilippine citi)ens H 2hilippine citi"enship ma( be ac0uired b( (a) natives of the 2hilippines &ho are not citi"ens thereof under the Jones #a&3 (b) natives of the 9nsular possessions of the ?nited %tates3 (c) citi"ens of the ?nited %tates, or foreigners &ho under the la&s of the ?nited %tates

ma( become citi"ens of said countr( if residing therein. %ection 4. Fho are dis(ualified. H The follo&ing cannot be naturali"ed as 2hilippine citi"ens1 (a) 2ersons opposed to organi"ed government or affiliated &ith an( association or group of persons &ho uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organi"ed government3 (b) persons defending or teaching the necessit( or propriet( of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas3 (c) pol(gamists or believers in the practice of pol(gam(3 (d) persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude3 (e) persons suffering from mental

alienation or incurable contagious diseases3 (f) citi"ens or sub7ects of nations &ith &hom the ?nited %tates and the 2hilippines are at &ar, during the period of such &ar. %ection :. Iualifications. H The persons comprised in subsection (a) of section one of this -ct, in order to be able to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship, must be not less than t&ent(Cone (ears of age on the da( of the hearing of their petition. The persons comprised in subsections (b) and (c) of said section one shall, in addition to being not less than t&ent(C one (ears of age on the da( of the hearing of the petition, have all and each of the follo&ing 0ualifications1

!irst. Residence in the 2hilippine 9slands for a continuous period of not less than five (ears, e.cept as provided in the ne.t follo&ing section3 %econd. To have conducted themselves in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of their residence in the 2hilippine 9slands, in their relation &ith the constituted government as &ell as &ith the communit( in &hich the( are living3 Third. To hold in the 2hilippine 9slands real estate &orth not less than one thousand pesos, 2hilippine currenc(, or have some kno&n trade or profession3 and !ourth. To speak and &rite English, %panish, or some native tongue.

9n case the petitioner is a foreign sub7ect, he shall, besides, declare in &riting and under oath his intention of renouncing absolutel( and perpetuall( all faith and allegiance to the foreign authorit(, state or sovereignt( of &hich he &as a native, citi"en or sub7ect. -ppl(ing the interpretation given b( Leonard v. 8rant supra, to our la& as it then stood, alien &omen married to citi"ens of the 2hilippines must, in order to be deemed citi"ens of the 2hilippines, be either ()) natives of the 2hilippines &ho &ere not citi"ens thereof under the Jones #a&, or (4) natives of other 9nsular possessions of the ?nited %tates, or (:) citi"ens of the ?nited %tates or foreigners &ho under the la&s of the ?nited %tates might become citi"ens of that countr( if residing therein. 6ith respect to the 0ualifications set forth in %ection : of the former la&, the( &ere deemed to have the same for all intents and purposes. /ut, &ith the approval of the Revised $aturali"ation #a& (Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:) on June ),, )*:*, Congress has since discarded class or racial consideration from the

0ualifications of applicants for naturali"ation (according to its proponent, the purpose in eliminating this consideration &as, first, to remove the features of the e.isting naturali"ation act &hich discriminated in favor of the Caucasians and against -siatics &ho are our neighbors, and are related to us b( racial affinit( and, second, to foster amit( &ith all nations ;%inco, 2hil. 2olitical #a& >B4 H )) ed.<), even as it retained in %ection )> the phrase in 0uestion. The result is that the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= must be understood in the conte.t in &hich it is no& found, in a setting so different from that in &hich it &as found b( the Court in Leonard v. 8rant. The onl( logical deduction from the elimination of class or racial consideration is that, as the %olicitor Feneral points out, the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= must no& be understood as referring to those &ho under %ection 4 of the la& are 0ualified to become citi"ens of the 2hilippines. There is simpl( no support for the vie& that the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= must no& be understood as re0uiring merel( that the alien &oman must not belong to the class of dis0ualified persons under %ection A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&. %uch a proposition misreads the ruling laid do&n in #eonard v. Frant. person &ho is not dis0ualified is not necessaril( 0ualified to become a citi"en

of the 2hilippines, because the la& treats =0ualifications= and =dis0ualifications= in separate sections. -nd then it must not be lost sight of that even under the interpretation given to the former la&, it &as to be understood that the alien &oman &as not dis0ualified under %ection 4 of that la&. #eonard v. Frant did not rule that it &as enough if the alien &oman does not belong to the class of dis0ualified persons in order that she ma( be deemed to follo& the citi"enship of her husband1 6hat that case held &as that the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed, merel( means that she belongs to the class or race of persons 0ualified to become citi"ens b( naturali"ation H the assumption being al&a(s that she is not other&ise dis0ualified. 6e therefore hold that under the first paragraph of %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a&, an alien &oman, &ho is married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, ac0uires the citi"enship of her husband onl( if she has all the 0ualifications and none of the dis0ualifications provided b( la&. %ince there is no proof in this case that petitioner has all the 0ualifications and is not in an( &a( dis0ualified, her marriage to a !ilipino citi"en does not automaticall( make her a !ilipino citi"en. Her affidavit to the effect that she is not in an( &a( dis0ualified to become a citi"en of this countr( &as correctl( disregarded b( the trial court, the same being selfCserving.

$aturall(, almost a month later in "un -ec: @ong v. Co66issioner of !66igration, F.R. $o. #C4B,+A, Gecember 4,, )*5:, * %CR+,>, &herein the %ecretar( of !oreign -ffairs reversed a previous resolution of the preceding administration to allo& %un 2eck @ong and her minor son to a&ait the taking of the oath of !ilipino citi"enship of her husband t&o (ears after the decision granting him nationali"ation and re0uired her to leave and this order &as contested in court, Justice /arrera held1 9n the case of Lo "an Tuang v. Co66issioner of !66igration (F.R. $o. #C )+,,>, promulgated $ovember :B, )*5:3 Eua "u. vs. Co66issioner of !66igration, #C):,*B, promulgated ctober :), )*5:), &e held that the fact that the husband became a naturali"ed citi"en does not automaticall( make the &ife a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 9t must also be sho&n that she herself possesses all the 0ualifications, and none of the dis0ualifications, to become a citi"en. 9n this case, there is no allegation, much less sho&ing, that petitionerC&ife is 0ualified to become a !ilipino citi"en herself. !urthermore, the fact that a decision &as favorabl( made on the naturali"ation petition of her husband is no assurance that he (the husband) &ould become a citi"en, as to make a basis for the e.tension of her temporar( sta(. n the same da(, in Tong "io: ". v. Divo, F.R. $o. #C4)):5, Gecember 4,, )*5:, * %CR- +,5, Justice /arrera reiterated the same ruling and citing particularl( #o %an Tuang and Nua %u(, held that the marriage of Tong %iok %( to a !ilipino on $ovember )4, )*5B at Taichung, Tai&an and her taking oath of !ilipino citi"enship before the 2hilippine 8iceCConsul at Taipeh, Tai&an on Januar( 5,

)*5) did not make her a !ilipino citi"en, since she came here onl( in )*5) and obviousl(, she had not had the necessar( tenC(ear residence in the 2hilippines re0uired b( the la&. %uch then &as the status of the 7urisprudential la& on the matter under discussion &hen Justice 'akalintal sought a ree.amination thereof in Cho. Eing Tee v. 8alang , F.R. $o. #C)+:>), 'arch 45, )*5>, ): %CR- AB4. Cho( Ning TeeEs husband &as granted 2hilippine citi"enship on Januar( ):, )*>* and took the oath on Januar( :) of the same (ear. Cho( Ning Tee first came to the 2hilippines in )*>> and kept commuting bet&een 'anila and Hongkong since then, her last visa before the case being due to e.pire on !ebruar( )A, )*5). n Januar( 4,, )*5), her husband asked the Commissioner of 9mmigration to cancel her alien certificate of registration, as &ell as their childEs, for the reason that the( &ere !ilipinos, and &hen the re0uest &as denied as to the &ife, a mandamus &as sought, &hich the trial court granted. Giscussing ane& the issue of the need for 0ualifications, Justice 'akalintal not onl( reiterated the arguments of Justice Regala in #o %an Tuang but added further that the ruling is believed to be in line &ith the national polic( of selective admission to 2hilippine citi"enship. @ $o &onder, upon this authorit(, in Austria v. Conchu, F.R. $o. #C4B,)5, June 44, )*5>, )A %CR- ::5, Justice J.2. /eng"on readil( reversed the decision of the lo&er court granting the &rits of mandamus and prohibition against the Commissioner of 9mmigration, considering that -ustriaEs &ife, &hile admitting she did not possess all the 0ualifications for naturali"ation, had submitted onl( an affidavit that she had none of the dis0ualifications therefor. %o also did Justice Gi"on similarl( hold eight da(s later in Brito v. Co66issioner, F.R. $o. #C)5+4*, June :B, )*5>, )A %CR- >:*. Then came the second #( Fiok Ha case & &herein Justice J. /. #. Re(es took occasion to e.pand on the reasoning of Cho( Ning Tee b( illustrating &ith e.amples =the danger of rel(ing e.clusivel( on the absence of

dis0ualifications, &ithout taking into account the other affirmative re0uirements of the la&.=
9

#astl(, in 8o !6 T. v. %epu*lic , F.R. $o. #C ),*)*, decided on Jul( :B, )*55, 10 Justice Jaldivar held for the Court that an alien &oman &ho is &ido&ed during the dependenc( of the naturali"ation proceedings of her husband, in order that she ma( be allo&ed to take the oath as !ilipino, must, aside from proving compliance &ith the re0uirements of Republic -ct >:B, sho& that she possesses all the 0ualifications and does not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications under the $aturali"ation #a&, citing in the process the decision to such effect discussed above, 11 even as he impliedl( reversed pro tanto the ruling in Tan Lin v. %epu*lic, F.R. $o. #C):,+5, 'a( :), )*5), 4 %CR- :+:. -ccordingl(, in /urca, Justice %anche" premised his opinion on the assumption that the point no& under discussion is settled la&. 9n the case no& at bar, the Court is again called upon to rule on the same issue. ?nder %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a&, Common&ealth -ct A,:, providing that1 %EC. )>. ffect of the naturali)ation on wife and children. H -n( &oman, &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 'inor children of persons naturali"ed under this la& &ho have been born in the 2hilippines shall be considered citi"ens thereof. - foreignCborn minor child, if d&elling in the 2hilippines at the time of the naturali"ation of the parent, shall automaticall( become a 2hilippine citi"en, and a foreignCborn child, &ho

is not in the 2hilippines at the time the parent is naturali"ed, shall be deemed a 2hilippine citi"en onl( during his minorit(, unless he begins to reside permanentl( in the 2hilippines &hen still a minor, in &hich case, he &ill continue to be a 2hilippine citi"en even after becoming of age. - child born outside of the 2hilippines after the naturali"ation of his parent, shall be considered a 2hilippine citi"en unless &ithin one (ear after reaching the age of ma7orit( he fails to register himself as a 2hilippine citi"en at the -merican Consulate of the countr( &here he resides, and to take the necessar( oath of allegiance. is it necessar(, in order that an alien &oman &ho marries a !ilipino or &ho is married to a man &ho subse0uentl( becomes a !ilipino, ma( become a !ilipino citi"en herself, that, aside from not suffering from an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in the la&, she must also possess all the 0ualifications re0uired b( said la&D if nothing but the unbroken line from #ee %uan -( to Fo 9m T(, as recounted above, &ere to be considered, it is obvious that an affirmative ans&er to the 0uestion &ould be inevitable, speciall(, if it is noted that the present case &as actuall( submitted for decision on Januar( 4), )*5A (et, shortl( after #o %an Tuang, Tong %iok %( and %un 2eck @ong, all supra, and even before Cho( Ning Tee, supra, &ere decided. There are other circumstances, ho&ever, &hich make it desirable, if not necessar(, that the Court take up the matter ane&. There has been a substantial change in the membership of the Court since Fo 9m T(, and of those &ho &ere in the Court alread( &hen /urca &as decided, t&o members, Justice 'akalintal and Castro concurred onl( in the result, precisel(, according to them, because (the( &anted to leave the point no& under discussion open in so far as the( are concerned. 12 Truth to tell,

the vie&s and arguments discussed at length &ith copious relevant authorities, in the motion for reconsideration as &ell as in the memorandum of the a6ici curae 13 in the /urca case cannot 7ust be taken lightl( and summaril( ignored, since the( pro7ect in the most forceful manner, not onl( the legal and logical angles of the issue, but also the imperative practical aspects thereof in the light of the actual situation of the thousands of alien &ives of !ilipinos &ho have so long, even decades, considered themselves as !ilipinas and have al&a(s lived and acted as such, officiall( or other&ise, rel(ing on the long standing continuous recognition of their status as such b( the administrative authorities in charge of the matter, as &ell as b( the courts. ?nder these circumstances, and if onl( to afford the Court an opportunit( to consider the vie&s of the five 7ustices &ho took no part in Fo 9m T( (including the &riter of this opinion), the Court decided to further ree.amine the matter. -fter all, the ruling first laid in Lee "uan A., and later in Lo "an Tuang, Cho. Eing Tee stand the second ()*55) L. 8io: Ha, did not categoricall( repudiate the opinions of the %ecretar( of Justice relied upon b( the first ()*>*) L. 8io: Ha. /esides, some points brought to light during the deliberations in this case &ould seem to indicate that the premises of the later cases can still bear further consideration. 6hether 6e like it or not, it is undeniabl( factual that the legal provision 6e are construing, %ection )>, afore0uoted, of the $aturali"ation #a& has been taken directl(, copied and adopted from its -merican counterpart. To be more accurate, said provision is nothing less than a reenactment of the -merican provision. - brief revie& of its histor( proves this be(ond per adventure of doubt. The first $aturali"ation #a& of the 2hilippines approved b( the 2hilippine #egislature under -merican sovereignt( &as that of 'arch 45, )*4B, -ct $o. 4*4,. /efore then, as a conse0uence of the Treat( of 2aris, our citi"enship la&s &ere found onl( in the rganic #a&s, the 2hilippine /ill of )*B4, the -ct of the ?nited %tates Congress of 'arch 4:, )*)4 and later the Jones #a& of )*)5. 9n

fact, -ct $o. 4*4, &as enacted pursuant to e.press authorit( granted b( the Jones #a&. !or obvious reasons, the 2hilippines gained autonom( on the sub7ects of citi"enship and immigration onl( after the effectivit( of the 2hilippine 9ndependence -ct. This made it practicall( impossible for our la&s on said sub7ect to have an( perspective or orientation of our o&n3 ever(thing &as -merican. The 2hilippine pertinentl(1 . /ill of )*B4 provided

%ECT9 $ A. That all inhabitants of the 2hilippine 9slands continuing to reside herein &ho &ere %panish sub7ects on the eleventh da( of -pril, eighteenChundred and ninet(Cnine, and then resided in said 9slands, and their children born subse0uent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citi"ens of the 2hilippine 9slands and as such entitled to the protection of the ?nited %tates, e.cept such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Cro&n of %pain in accordance &ith the provisions of the treat( of peace bet&een the ?nited %tates and %pain signed at 2aris Gecember tenth, eighteen hundred and ninet(C eight. This %ection A of the 2hilippine /ill of )*B4 &as amended b( -ct of Congress of 'arch 4:, )*)4, b( adding a provision as follo&s1 2rovided, That the 2hilippine #egislature is hereb( authori"ed to provide b( la& for the ac0uisition of 2hilippine citi"enship b( those natives of the 2hilippine 9slands &ho do not come &ithin the foregoing provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of the ?nited %tates, and such other persons residing in the

2hilippine 9slands &ho &ould become citi"ens of the ?nited %tates, under the la&s of the ?nited %tates, if residing therein. The Jones #a& reenacted these provisions substantiall(1 . %ECT9 $ 4. That all inhabitants of the 2hilippine 9slands &ho &ere %panish sub7ects on the eleventh da( of -pril, eighteen hundred and ninet(Cnine, and then resided in said islands, and their children born subse0uent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citi"ens of the 2hilippine 9slands, e.cept such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Cro&n of %pain in accordance &ith the provisions of the treat( of peace bet&een the ?nited %tates and %pain, signed at 2aris Gecember tenth, eighteen hundred and ninet(Ceight and e.cept such others as have since become citi"ens of some other countr(1 2rovided, That the 2hilippine #egislature, herein provided for, is hereb( authori"ed to provide b( la& for the ac0uisition of 2hilippine citi"enship b( those natives of the 2hilippine 9slands &ho do not come &ithin the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the ?nited %tates, and such other persons residing in the 2hilippine 9slands &ho are citi"ens of the ?nited %tates under the la&s of the ?nited %tates if residing therein. !or aught that appears, there &as nothing in an( of the said organic la&s regarding the effect of marriage to a !ilipino upon the nationalit( of an alien &oman, albeit under the %panish Civil Code provisions on citi"enship,

-rticles ), to 4,, &hich &ere, ho&ever, abrogated upon the change of sovereignt(, it &as un0uestionable that the citi"enship of the &ife al&a(s follo&ed that of the husband. $ot even -ct 4*4, contained an( provision regarding the effect of naturali"ation of an alien, upon the citi"enship of his alien &ife, nor of the marriage of such alien &oman &ith a native born !ilipino or one &ho had become a !ilipino before the marriage, although %ection ): thereof provided thus1 . %EC. ):. %ight of widow and children of petitioners who have died. H 9n case a petitioner should die before the final decision has been rendered, his &ido& and minor children ma( continue the proceedings. The decision rendered in the case shall, so far as the &ido& and minor children are concerned, produce the same legal effect as if it had been rendered during the life of the petitioner. 9t &as not until $ovember :B, )*4+, upon the approval of -ct :AA+, amending -ct 4*,,, that the follo&ing provisions &ere added to the above %ection ):1 %ECT9 $ ). The follo&ing ne& sections are hereb( inserted bet&een sections thirteen and fourteen of -ct $umbered T&ent(Cnine hundred and T&ent(Cseven1 %EC. ):(a). -n( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippine 9slands and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed, shall be

deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippine 9slands. %EC. ):(b). Children of persons &ho have been dul( naturali"ed under this la&, being under the age of t&ent(Cone (ears at the time of the naturali"ation of their parents, shall, if d&elling in the 2hilippine 9slands, be considered citi"ens thereof. %EC. ):(c). Children of persons naturali"ed under this la& &ho have been born in the 2hilippine 9slands after the naturali"ation of their parents shall be considered citi"ens thereof. 6hen Common&ealth -ct A,:, the current naturali"ation la&, &as enacted on June ),, )*:*, the above %ection ): became its %ection )> &hich has alread( been 0uoted earlier in this decision. -s can be seen, %ection ): (a) above0uoted &as reCenacted practicall( &ord for &ord in the first paragraph of this %ection )> e.cept for the change of 2hilippine 9slands to 2hilippines. -nd it could not have been on an( other basis than this

legislative histor( of our naturali"ation la& that each and ever(one of the decisions of this Court from the first #( Fiok Ha to Fo 9m T(, discussed above, &ere rendered. -s stated earlier, in the opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion in the first #( Fiok Ha, it &as 0uite clear that for an alien &oman &ho marries a !ilipino to become herself a !ilipino citi"en, there is no need for an( naturali"ation proceeding because she becomes a !ilipina ipso facto from the time of such marriage, provided she does not suffer an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in %ection A of Common&ealth -ct A,:, &ith no mention being made of &hether or not the 0ualifications enumerated in %ection 4 thereof need be sho&n. 9t &as onl( in Lee "uan A. in )*>* that the possession of 0ualifications &ere specificall( re0uired, but it &as not until )*5:, in Lo "an Tuang, that Justice Regala reasoned out &h( the possession of the 0ualifications provided b( the la& should also be sho&n to be possessed b( the alien &ife of a !ilipino, for her to become a !ilipina b( marriage. -s ma( be recalled, the basic argument advanced b( Justice Regala &as briefl( as follo&s1 That =like the la& in the ?nited %tates, our $aturali"ation #a& specified the classes of persons &ho alone might become citi"ens, even as it provided &ho &ere dis0ualified,= and inasmuch as Common&ealth -ct A,:, our $aturali"ation #a& since )*:* did not reenact the section providing &ho might become citi"ens, allegedl( in order to remove racial discrimination in favor of Caucasians and against -siatics, =the onl( logical deduction ... is that the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= must no& be understood as referring to those &ho under %ection 4 of the la& are 0ualified to become citi"ens of the 2hilippines= and =there is simpl( no support for the vie& that the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= must no& be understood as re0uiring merel( that the alien &oman must not belong to the class of dis0ualified persons under %ection A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&.= 1;

- similar line of reasoning &as follo&ed in Cho. Eing Tee, &hich for read( reference ma( be 0outed1 The 0uestion has been settled b( the uniform ruling of this Court in a number of cases. The alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en must first prove that she has all the 0ualifications re0uired b( %ection 4 and none of the dis0ualifications enumerated in %ection A of the $aturali"ation #a& before she ma( be deemed a 2hilippine citi"en (#ao Cha( v. Falang, #C)*B*,,, ct. :B, )*5A, citing #o %an Tuang v. Falang, #C )+,,>, $ov. :B, )*5:3 %un 2eck @ong v. Commissioner of 9mmigration, #C4B,+A, Gecember 4,, )*5:3 Tong %iok %( v. 8ivo, #C4)):5, Gecember 4,, )*5:). The &riter of this opinion has submitted the 0uestion ane& to the court for a possible ree.amination of the said ruling in the light of the interpretation of a similar la& in the ?nited %tates after &hich %ection )> of our $aturali"ation #a& &as patterned. That la& &as section 4 of the -ct of !ebruar( )B, )+>> (%ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of the ?.%.). The local la&, -ct $o. :AA+, &as passed on $ovember :B, )*4+ as an amendment to the former 2hilippine $aturali"ation #a&, -ct $o. 4*4,, &hich &as approved on 'arch 45, )*4B. ?nder this $aturali"ation #a&, ac0uisition of 2hilippine citi"enship &as limited to three classes of persons, (a) $atives of the 2hilippines &ho &ere not citi"ens thereof3 (b) natives of the other insular possessions of the ?nited %tates3 and (c) citi"ens of the

?nited %tates, or foreigners &ho, under the la&s of the ?nited %tates, ma( become citi"ens of the latter countr( if residing therein. The reference in subdivision (c) to foreigners &ho ma( become -merican Citi"ens is restrictive in character, for onl( persons of certain specified races &ere 0ualified thereunder. 9n other &ords, in so far as racial restrictions &ere concerned there &as at the time a similarit( bet&een the naturali"ation la&s of the t&o countries and hence there &as reason to accord here persuasive force to the interpretation given in the ?nited %tates to the statutor( provision concerning the citi"enship of alien &omen marr(ing -merican citi"ens. This Court, ho&ever, believes that such reason has ceased to e.ist since the enactment of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, (Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:) on June ),, )*:*. The racial restrictions have been eliminated in this -ct, but the provision found in -ct $o. :AA+ has been maintained. 9t is logical to presume that &hen Congress chose to retain the said provision H that to be deemed a 2hilippine citi"en upon marriage the alien &ife must be one =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed,= the reference is no longer to the class or race to &hich the &oman belongs, for class or race has become immaterial, but to the 0ualifications and dis0ualifications for naturali"ation as enumerated in %ections 4 and A of the statute. ther&ise the re0uirement that the &oman

=might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= &ould be meaningless surplusage, contrar( to settled norms of statutor( construction. The rule laid do&n b( this Court in this and in other cases heretofore decided is believed to be in line &ith the national polic( of selective admission to 2hilippine citi"enship, &hich after all is a privilege granted onl( to those &ho are found &orth( thereof, and not indiscriminatel( to an(bod( at all on the basis alone of marriage to a man &ho is a citi"en of the 2hilippines, irrespective of moral character, ideological beliefs, and identification &ith !ilipino ideals, customs and traditions. -ppellee here having failed to prove that she has all the 0ualifications for naturali"ation, even, indeed, that she has none of the dis0ualifications, she is not entitled to recognition as a 2hilippine citi"en. 9n the second #( Fiok Ha, the Court further fortified the arguments in favor of the same conclusion thus1 n crossCe.amination, she (#( Fiok Ha) failed to establish that1 ()) she has been residing in the 2hilippines for a continuous period of at least ()B) (ears (p. 4,, t.s.n., id.)3 (4) she has a lucrative trade, profession, or la&ful occupation (p. ):, t.s.n., id.)3 and (:) she can speak and &rite English, or an( of the principal 2hilippine languages (pp. )4, ):, t.s.n., id.).

6hile the appellant 9mmigration Commissioner contends that the &ords emphasi"ed indicate that the present $aturali"ation #a& re0uires that an alien &oman &ho marries a !ilipino husband must possess the 0ualifications prescribed b( section 4 in addition to not being dis0ualified under an( of the eight (=a= to =h=) subheadings of section A of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, in order to claim our citi"enship b( marriage, both the appellee and the court belo& (in its second decision) sustain the vie& that all that the la& demands is that the &oman be not dis0ualified under section A. -t the time the present case &as remanded to the court of origin ()*5B) the 0uestion at issue could be regarded as not conclusivel( settled, there being onl( the concise pronouncement in Lee "uan A., et al. v. 8alang, F. R. $o. #C))+>>, Gec. 4:, )*>*, to the effect that1 The marriage of a !ilipino citi"en to an alien does not automaticall( confer 2hilippine citi"enship upon the latter. %he must possess the 0ualifications re0uired b( la& to become a !ilipino citi"en b( naturali"ation.

%ince that time, ho&ever, a long line of decisions of this Court has firml( established the rule that the re0uirement of section )> of Common&ealth -ct A,: (the $aturali"ation -ct), that an alien &oman married to a citi"en should be one &ho =6ight herself *e lawfull. naturali)ed ,= means not onl( &oman free from the dis0ualifications enumerated in section A of the -ct but also one &ho possesses the 0ualifications prescribed b( section 4 of Common&ealth -ct A,: (%an Tuan v. Falang, #C)+,,>, $ov. :B, )*5:3 %un 2eck @ong v. Com. of 9mmigration, #C4B,+A, Gee. 4,, )*5:3 Tong %iok %( v. 8ivo, #C4)):5, Gec. 4,, )*5:3 -ustria v. Conchu, #C4B,)5, June 44, )*5>3 Cho( Ning Tee v. Falang, #C)+:>), 'arch 45, )*5>3 /rito v. Com. of 9mmigration, #C)5+4*, June :B, )*5>). Reflection &ill reveal &h( this must be so. The 0ualifications prescribed under section 4 of the $aturali"ation -ct, and the dis0ualifications enumerated in its section A are not mutuall( e.clusive3 and if all that &ere to be re0uired is that the &ife of a !ilipino be not dis0ualified under section A, the result might &ell be that citi"enship &ould be conferred upon persons in violation of the polic( of the statute. !or e.ample, section A dis0ualifies onl( H (c) 2ol(gamists or believers in the practice of pol(gam(3 and (d) 2ersons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude,

so that a blackmailer, or a maintainer of gambling or ba&d( houses, not previousl( convicted b( a competent court &ould not be thereb( dis0ualified3 still, it is certain that the la& did not intend such person to be admitted as a citi"en in vie& of the re0uirement of section 4 that an applicant for citi"enship =must be of good moral character.= %imilarl(, the citi"enEs &ife might be a convinced believer in racial supremac(, in government b( certain selected classes, in the right to vote e.clusivel( b( certain =herrenvolk=, and thus disbelieve in the principles underl(ing the 2hilippine Constitution3 (et she &ould not be dis0ualified under section A, as long as she is not =opposed to organi"ed government,= nor affiliated to groups =upholding or teaching doctrines opposing all organi"ed governments=, nor =defending or teaching the necessit( or propriet( of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas.= t sic de caeteris. The foregoing instances should suffice to illustrate the danger of rel(ing e.clusivel( on the absence of dis0ualifications, &ithout taking into account the other affirmative re0uirements of the la&, &hich, in the case at bar, the appellee #( Fiok Ha admittedl( does not possess. -s to the argument that the phrase =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= &as derived from the ?.%. Revised

%tatutes (section )**A) and should be given the same territorial and racial significance given to it b( -merican courts, this Court has re7ected the same in Lon "an Tuang v. 8alang, #C )+,,>, $ovember :B, )*5:3 and in Cho. Eing Tee v. 8alang, #C)+:>), 'arch 45, )*5>. 9t is difficult to minimi"e the persuasive force of the foregoing rationali"ations, but a closer stud( thereof cannot bat reveal certain relevant considerations &hich adversel( affect the premises on &hich the( are predicated, thus rendering the conclusions arrived thereb( not entirel( unassailable. ). The main proposition, for instance, that in eliminating %ection ) of -ct 4*4, providing &ho are eligible for 2hilippine citi"enship, the purpose of Common&ealth -ct A,:, the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, &as to remove the racial re0uirements for naturali"ation, thereb( opening the door of !ilipino nationalit( to -siatics instead of allo&ing the admission thereto of Caucasians onl(, suffers from lack of e.act accurac(. 9t is important to note, to start &ith, that Common&ealth -ct A,: did a&a( &ith the &hole %ection ) of -ct 4*4, &hich reads, thus1 %ECT9 $ ). Fho 6a. *eco6e -hilippine citi)ens . H 2hilippine citi"enship ma( be ac0uired b(1 (a) natives of the 2hilippines &ho are not citi"ens thereof under the Jones #a&3 (b) natives of the other 9nsular possessions of the ?nited %tates3 (c) citi"ens of the ?nited %tates, or foreigners &ho under the la&s of the ?nited %tates ma( become citi"ens of said countr( if residing therein. and not onl( subdivision (c) thereof. $o&here in this &hole provision &as there an( mention of race or color of the persons &ho &ere then

eligible for 2hilippine citi"enship. 6hat is more evident from said provision is that it reflected the inevitable subordination of our legislation during the preCCommon&ealth -merican regime to the understandable stations flo&ing from our staffs as a territor( of the ?nited %tates b( virtue of the Treat( of 2aris. 9n fact, %ection ) of -ct 4*4, &as precisel( approved pursuant to e.press authorit( &ithout &hich it could not have been done, granted b( an amendment to %ection A of the 2hilippine /ill of )*B4 introduced b( the -ct of the ?nited %tates Congress of 'arch 4:, )*)4 and &hich &as reenacted as part of the Jones #a& of )*)5, the pertinent provisions of &hich have alread( been footed earlier. 9n truth, therefore, it &as because of the establishment of the 2hilippine Common&ealth and in the e.ercise of our legislative autonom( on citi"enship matters under the 2hilippine 9ndependence -ct that %ection ) of -ct 4*4, &as eliminated, 1) and not purposel( to eliminate an( racial discrimination contained in our $aturali"ation #a&. The 2hilippine #egislature naturall( &ished to free our $aturali"ation #a& from the impositions of -merican legislation. 9n other &ords, the fact that such discrimination &as removed &as one of the effects rather than the intended purpose of the amendment. 4. -gain, the statement in Cho( Ning Tee to the effect that =the reference in subdivision (c) (of %ection ) of -ct 4*4,) to foreigners &ho ma( become -merican citi"ens is restrictive in character, for onl( persons of certain specified races &ere 0ualified thereunder= fails to consider the e.act import of the said subdivision. E.plicitl(, the thrust of the said subdivision &as to confine the grant under it of 2hilippine citi"enship onl( to the three classes of persons therein mentioned, the third of &hich &ere citi"ens of the ?nited %tates and, corollaril(, persons &ho could be -merican citi"ens under her la&s. The &ords used in the provision do not conve( an( idea of favoring aliens of an( particular race or color and of e.cluding others, but more accuratel(, the( refer to all the dis0ualifications of foreigners for -merican citi"enship under the la&s of the ?nited %tates. The fact is that even as of )*B5, or long before )*4B, &hen our -ct 4*4, became a la&, the naturali"ation, la&s of the ?nited

%tates alread( provided for the follo&ing dis0ualifications in the -ct of the Congress of June 4*, )*B51 %EC. ,. That no person &ho disbelieves in or &ho is opposed to organi"ed government, or &ho is a member of or affiliated &ith an( organi"ation entertaining and teaching such disbelief in or opposition to organi"ed government, or &ho advocates or teaches the dut(, necessit(, or propriet( of the unla&ful assaulting or killing of an( officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generall(, of the Fovernment of the ?nited %tates, or of an( other organi"ed government, because of his or their official character, or &ho is a pol(gamist, shall be naturali"ed or be made a citi"en of the ?nited %tates. and all these dis0ualified persons &ere, therefore, ineligible for 2hilippine citi"enship under %ection ) of -ct 4*4, even if the( happened to be Caucasians. 'ore importantl(, as a matter of fact, said -merican la&, &hich &as the first =-ct to Establish a /ureau of 9mmigration and $aturali"ation and to provide for a ?niform Rule for $aturali"ation of -liens throughout the ?nited %tates= contained no racial dis0ualification re0uirement, e.cept as to Chinese, the -ct of 'a( 5, )++4 not being among the e.pressl( repealed b( this la&, hence it is clear that &hen -ct 4*4, &as enacted, subdivision (e) of its %ection ) could not have had an( connotation of racial e.clusion necessaril(, even if it &ere traced back to its origin in the -ct of the ?nited %tates Congress of )*)4 alread( mentioned above. 18 Thus, it &ould seem that the rationali"ation in the 0outed decisions predicated on the theor( that the elimination of %ection ) of -ct 4*4, b( Common&ealth -ct A,: &as purposel( for no other end than the abolition of racial

discrimination in our naturali"ation la& has no clear factual basis. 1@ :. 9n vie& of these considerations, there appears to be no cogent reason &h( the construction adopted in the opinions of the %ecretar( of Justice referred to in the first #( Fiok Ha decision of the Chief Justice should not prevail. 9t is be(ond dispute that the first paragraph of %ection )> of Common&ealth -ct A,: is a reenactment of %ection ):(a) of -ct 4*4,, as amended b( -ct :AA+, and that the latter is nothing but an e.act cop(, deliberatel( made, of %ection )**A of the Raised %tatutes of the ?nited %tates as it stood before its repeal in )*44. 1& /efore such repeal, the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= found in said %ection )> had a definite unmistakable construction uniforml( fo9lo&ed in all courts of the ?nited %tates that had occasion to appl( the same and &hich, therefore, must be considered, as if it &ere &ritten in the statute itself. 9t is almost trite to sa( that &hen our legislators enacted said section, the( kne& of its unvar(ing construction in the ?nited %tates and that, therefore, in adopting verbatim the -merican statute, the( have in effect incorporated into the provision, as thus enacted, the construction given to it b( the -merican courts as &ell as the -ttorne( Feneral of the ?nited %tates and all administrative authorities, charged &ith the implementation of the naturali"ation and immigration la&s of that countr(. (#o Cham v. campo, ,, 2hil., 5:> ;)*A5<3 #a.amana v. /alta"ar, *4 2hil., :4 ;)*>4<3 Hartle( v. Commissioner, 4*> ?.%. 4)5, ,* #. ed. ):**, >> % Ct. ,>5 ;)*:>:3 Helvering v. 6inmill, :B> ?.%. ,*, +: # ed. >4, >* % Ct. A> ;)*:+<3 Helvering v. R. J. Re(nolds Tobacco Co., :B5 ?.%. ))B, +: # ed. >:5, >* % Ct. A4: ;)*:*<. ;p. :4, 'emo of A6icus Curiae<). - fairl( comprehensive summar( of the said construction b( the -merican courts and administrative authorities is contained in ?nited %tates of -merica e. rel. &ora "e'nens:. v. %o*ert . Tod, Co66issioner of !66igration, -ppt., 4*> !ed. >4:, decided $ovember )A, )*44, 45 -. #. R. ):)5 as follo&s1

%ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes (Comp. %tat. :*A+, 4 !ed. %ta. -nno. 4d ed. p. )),) provides as follo&s1 =-n( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the ?nited %tates, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed, shall be deemed a citi"en.= %ection )*AA of the Revised %tat. is said to originate in the -ct of Congress of !ebruar( )B, )+>> ()B %tat. at #. 5BA, chap. ,)), &hich in its second section provided =that an( &oman, &ho might la&full( be naturali"ed under the e.isting la&s, married, or &ho shall be married to a citi"en of the ?nited %tates, shall be deemed and taken to be a citi"en.= -nd the -merican %tatute of )+>> is substantiall( a cop( of the earlier /ritish %tatute , Q + 8ict. chap. 55, s )5, )+AA, &hich provided that =an( &oman married, or &ho shall be married, to a naturalCborn sub7ect or person naturali"ed, shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturali"ed, and have all the rights and privileges of a natural born sub7ect.= The -ct of Congress of %eptember 44, )*44 (A4 %tat. at #. )B4), chap. A)), Comp. %tat. A:>+b, !ed. %tat. -nno. %upp. )*44, p. 4>>), being =-n -ct Relative to the $aturali"ation and Citi"enship of 'arried 6omen,= in 4, provides =that an( &oman &ho marries a citi"en of the ?nited %tates after the passage of this -ct, ... shall not become a citi"en of the ?nited %tates b( reason of such marriage ...=

%ection 5 of the act also provides =that )**A of the Revised %tatutes ... are repealed.= %ection 5 also provides that Rsuch repeal shall not terminate citi"enship ac0uired or retained under either of such sections, ...= meaning 4 and 5. %o that this -ct of %eptember 44, )*44, has no application to the facts of the present case, as the marriage of the relator took place prior to its passage. This case, therefore, depends upon the meaning to be attached to )**A of the Revised %tatutes. 9n )+5+ the %upreme Court, in Eell. v. Owen, , 6all. A*5, A*+, )* #. ed. 4+:, 4+A, construed this provision as found in the -ct of )+>> as follo&s1 =The term, =&ho might la&full( be naturali"ed under the e.isting la&s,= onl( limits the application of the la& to free &hite &omen. The previous $aturali"ation -ct, e.isting at the time, onl( re0uired that the person appl(ing for its benefits should be =a free &hite person,= and not an alien enem(.= This construction limited the effect of the statute to those aliens &ho belonged to the class or race &hich might be la&full( naturali"ed, and did not refer to an( of the other provisions of the naturali"ation la&s as to residence or moral character, or to an( of the provisions of the immigration la&s relating to the e.clusion or deportation of aliens. 9n )++B, in #eonard v. Frant (C. C.) > !ed. )), Gistrict

Judge Gead( also construed the -ct of )+>>, declaring that =an( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the ?nited %tates, and might herself be la&full( naturali"ed, shall be deemed a citi"en.= He held that =upon the authorities, and the reason, if not the necessit(, of the case,= the statute must be construed as in effect declaring that an alien &oman, &ho is of the class or race that ma( be la&full( naturali"ed under the e.isting la&s, and &ho marries a citi"en of the ?nited %tates, is such a citi"en also, and it &as not necessar( that it should appear affirmativel( that she possessed the other 0ualifications at the time of her marriage to entitle her to naturali"ation. 9n )++4, the -ct of )+>> came before 'r. Justice Harlan, sitting in the circuit court, in #nited "tates v. Eellar , ): !ed. +4. -n alien &oman, a sub7ect of 2russia came to the ?nited %tates and married here a naturali"ed citi"en. 'r. Justice Harlan, &ith the concurrence of Judge Treat, held that upon her marriage she became ipso facto a citi"en of the ?nited %tates as full( as if she had complied &ith all of the provisions of the statutes upon the sub7ect of naturali"ation. He added1 =There can be no doubt of this, in vie& of the decision of the %upreme Court of the ?nited, %tates in Nell( v. &en, , 6all. A*5, )* #. ed. 4+:.= The alien =belonged to the class of persons= &ho might be la&full( naturali"ed. 9n )*BA, in Hop:ins v. $achant, 5> C. C. -. ), ):B

!ed. +:*, an alien &oman came to the ?nited %tates from !rance and entered the countr( contrar( to the immigration la&s. The immigration authorities took her into custod( at the port of $e& @ork, &ith the vie& of deporting her. %he applied for her release under a &rit of habeas corpus, and pending the disposition of the matter she married a naturali"ed -merican citi"en. The circuit court of appeals for the ninth Circuit held, affirming the court belo&, that she &as entitled to be discharged from custod(. The court declared1 =The rule is &ell settled that her marriage to a naturali"ed citi"en of the ?nited %tates entitled her to be discharged. The status of the &ife follo&s that of her husband, ... and b( virtue of her marriage her husbandEs domicil became her domicil.= . 9n )*B+, the circuit court for the district of Rhode 9sland in Re Rustigian, )5>. !ed. *+B, had before it the application of a husband for his final decree of naturali"ation. 9t appeared that at that time his &ife &as held b( the immigration authorities at $e& @ork on the ground that she &as afflicted &ith a dangerous and contagious disease. Counsel on both sides agreed that the effect of the husbandEs naturali"ation &ould be to confer citi"enship upon the &ife. 9n vie& of that contingenc( Gistrict Judge /ro&n declined to pass upon the husbandEs application for naturali"ation, and thought it best to &ait until it &as determined &hether the &ifeEs disease &as curable. He

placed his failure to act on the e.press ground that the effect of naturali"ing the husband might naturali"e her. -t the same time he e.press his opinion that the husbandEs naturali"ation &ould not effect her naturali"ation, as she &as not one &ho could become la&full( naturali"ed. =Her o&n capacit( (to become naturali"ed),= the court stated =is a prere0uisite to her attaining citi"enship. 9f herself lacking in that capacit(, the married status cannot confer it upon her.= $othing, ho&ever, &as actuall( decided in that case, and the vie&s e.pressed therein are reall( nothing more than mere dicta. /ut, if the( can be regarded as something more than that, &e find ourselves, &ith all due respect for the learned 7udge, unable to accept them. 9n )*B*, in ?nited %tates e. rel. Nicola v. Fillia6s, ),: !ed. 545, Gistrict Judge #earned Hand held that an alien &oman, a sub7ect of the Turkish Empire, &ho married an -merican citi"en &hile visiting Turke(, and then came to the ?nited %tates, could not be e.cluded, although she had, at the time of her entr(, a disease &hich under the immigration la&s &ould have been sufficient ground for her e.clusion, if she bad not had the status of a citi"en. The case &as brought into this court on appeal, and in )*)) &as affirmed, in )B5 C. C. -. A5A, )+A !ed. :44. 9n that case, ho&ever at the time the relators married, the( might have been la&full( naturali"ed, and &e said1 =Even if &e assume the contention of the district attorne( to be correct

that marriage &ill not make a citi"en of a &oman &ho &ould be e.cluded under our immigration la&s, it does not affect these relators.= 6e held that, being citi"ens, the( could not be e.cluded as aliens3 and it &as also said to be inconsistent &ith the polic( of our la& that the husband should be a citi"en and the &ife an alien. The distinction bet&een that case and the one no& before the court is that, in the former case, the marriage took place before an( order of e.clusion had been made, &hile in this the marriage &as celebrated after such an order &as made. /ut such an order is a mere administrative provision, and has not the force of a 7udgment of a court, and &orks no estoppel. The administrative order is based on the circumstances that e.isted at the time the order of e.clusion &as made. 9f the circumstances change prior to the order being carried into effect, it cannot be e.ecuted. !or e.ample, if an order of e.clusion should be based on the ground that the alien &as at the time afflicted &ith a contagious disease, and it should be made satisfactoril( to appear, prior to actual deportation, that the alien had entirel( recovered from the disease, &e think it plain that the order could not be carried into effect. %o, in this case, if, after the making of the order of e.clusion and &hile she is permitted temporaril( to remain, she in good faith marries an -merican citi"en, &e cannot doubt the validit( of her marriage, and that she thereb( ac0uired, under international la& and under

)**A of the Revised %tatutes, -merican citi"enship, and ceased to be an alien. There upon, the immigration authorities lost their 7urisdiction over her, as that 7urisdiction applies onl( to aliens, and not to citi"ens. 9n )*)B, Gistrict Judge Godge, in 5 parte Naprielian, )++ !ed. 5*A, sustained the right of the officials to deport a &oman under the follo&ing circumstances1 %he entered this countr( in Jul(, )*)B, being an alien and having been born in Turke(. %he &as taken into custod( b( the immigration authorities in the follo&ing %eptember, and in ctober a &arrant for her deportation &as issued. 2ending hearings as to the validit( of that order, she &as paroled in the custod( of her counsel. The ground alleged for her deportation &as that she &as afflicted &ith a dangerous and contagious disease at the time of her entr(. ne of the reasons assigned to defeat deportation &as that the &oman had married a citi"en of the ?nited %tates pending the proceedings for her deportation. Judge Godge declared himself unable to believe that a marriage under such circumstances =is capable of having the effect claimed, in vie& of the facts sho&n.= He held that it &as no part of the intended polic( of )**A to annul or override the immigration la&s, so as to authori"e the admission into the countr( of the &ife of a naturali"ed alien not other&ise entitled to enter, and that an alien &oman, &ho is of a class of persons e.cluded b( la&

from admission to the ?nited %tates does not come &ithin the provisions of that section. The court relied &holl( upon the dicta contained in the Rustigian Case. $o other authorities &ere cited. 9n )*)A, Gistrict Judge $eterer, in E. parte Fra(son, 4)> !ed. AA*, construed )**A and held that &here, pending proceedings to deport an alien native of !rance as an alien prostitute, she &as married to a citi"en of the ?nited %tates, she thereb( became a citi"en, and &as not sub7ect to deportation until her citi"enship &as revoked b( due process of la&. 9t &as his opinion that if, as &as contended, her marriage &as conceived in fraud, and &as entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration la&s and preventing her deportation, such fact should be established in a court of competent 7urisdiction in an action commenced for the purpose. The case &as appealed and the appeal &as dismissed. ):A C. C. -. 555, 4)* !ed. )B44. 9t is interesting also to observe the construction placed upon the language of the statute b( the Gepartment of Justice. 9n )+,A, -ttorne( Feneral 6illiams, )A ps. -tt(. Fen. AB4, passing upon the -ct of !ebruar( )B, )+>>, held that residence &ithin the ?nited %tates for the period re0uired b( the naturali"ation la&s &as riot necessar( in order to constitute an alien &oman a citi"en, she having married a citi"en of the ?nited %tates abroad, although she never resided in the ?nited %tates,

she and her husband having continued to reside abroad after the marriage. 9n )*B*, a similar construction &as given to the 9mmigration -ct of 'a( >, )*B,, in an opinion rendered b( -ttorne( Feneral 6ickersham. 9t appeared an unmarried &oman, t&ent(Ceight (ears of age and a native of /elgium, arrived in $e& @ork and &ent at once to a to&n in $ebraska, &here she continued to reside. -bout fifteen months after her arrival she &as taken before a ?nited %tates commissioner b( &a( of instituting proceedings under the 9mmigration -ct (:A %tat. at #. +*+, chap. )):A, Comp. %tat. A4A4, : !ed. %tat. -nno. 4d ed. p. 5:,) for her deportation, on the ground that she had entered this countr( for the purpose of prostitution, and had been found an inmate of a house of prostitution and practicing the same &ithin three (ears after landing. 9t appeared, ho&ever, that after she &as taken before the ?nited %tates commissioner, but prior to her arrest under a &arrant b( the Gepartment of Justice, she &as la&full( married to a nativeCborn citi"en of the ?nited %tates. The &oman professed at the time of her marriage an intention to abandon her previous mode of life and to remove &ith her husband to his home in 2enns(lvania. He kne& &hat her mode of life had been, but professed to believe in her good intentions. The 0uestion &as raised as to the right to deport her, the claim being advance that b( her marriage she bad become an -merican citi"en and

therefore could not be deported. The -ttorne( Feneral ruled against the right to deport her as she had become an -merican citi"en. He held that the &ords, =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed,= refer to a class or race &ho might be la&full( naturali"ed, and that compliance &ith the other conditions of the naturali"ation la&s &as not re0uired. 4, ps. -tt(. Fen. >B,. /efore concluding this opinion, &e ma( add that it has not escaped our observation that Congress, in enacting the 9mmigration -ct of )*),, so as to provide, in )*, =that the marriage to an -merican citi"en of a female of the se.uall( immoral classes ... shall not invest such female &ith ?nited %tates citi"enship if the marriage of such alien female shall be solemni"ed after her arrest or after the commission of acts &hich make her liable to deportation under this act.= T&o conclusions seem irresistibl( to follo& from the above change in the la&1 ()) Congress deemed legislation essential to prevent &omen of the immoral class avoiding deportation through the device of marr(ing an -merican citi"en. (4) 9f Congress intended that the marriage of an -merican citi"en &ith an alien &oman of an( other of the e.cluded classes, either before or after her detention, should not confer upon her -merican citi"enship, thereb( entitling

her to enter the countr(, its intention &ould have been e.pressed, and )* &ould not have been confined solel( to &omen of the immoral class. 9ndeed, 6e have e.amined all the leading -merican decisions on the sub7ect and 6e have found no &arrant for the proposition that the phrase =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= in %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes &as meant solel( as a racial bar, even if loose statements in some decisions and other treaties and other &ritings on the sub7ect &ould seem to give such impression. The case of Eelle. v. Owen, supra, &hich appears to be the most cited among the first of the decisions 19 simpl( held1 -s &e construe this -ct, it confers the privileges of citi"enship upon &omen married to citi"ens of the ?nited %tates, if the( are of the class of persons for &hose naturali"ation the previous -cts of Congress provide. The terms =married= or =&ho shall be married,= do not refer in our 7udgment, to the time &hen the ceremon( of marriage is celebrated, but to a state of marriage. The( mean that, &henever a &oman, &ho under previous -cts might be naturali"ed, is in a state of marriage to a citi"en, &hether his citi"enship e.isted at the passage of the -ct or subse0uentl(, or before or after the marriage, she becomes, b( that fact, a citi"en also. His citi"enship, &henever it e.ists, confers, under the -ct, citi"enship upon her. The construction &hich &ould restrict the -ct to &omen &hose husbands, at the time of marriage, are citi"ens, &ould e.clude far the greater number, for &hose benefit, as &e think, the -ct &as intended. 9ts ob7ect, in our

opinion, &as to allo& her citi"enship to follo& that of her husband, &ithout the necessit( of an( application for naturali"ation on her part3 and, if this &as the ob7ect, there is no reason for the restriction suggested. The terms, =&ho might la&full( be naturali"ed under the e.isting la&s,= onl( limit the application of the la& to free &hite &omen. The previous $aturali"ation -ct, e.isting at the time onl( re0uired that the person appl(ing for its benefits should be =a free &hite person,= and not an alien enem(. -ct of -pril )Ath, )+B4, 4 %tat. at #. )>:. - similar construction &as given to the -ct b( the Court of -ppeals of $e& @ork, in Burton v. Burton, AB $. @. :,:3 and is the one &hich gives the &idest e.tension to its provisions. $ote that &rite the court did sa( that =the terms, =&ho might la&full( be naturali"ed under e.isting la&s= onl( limit the application to free &hite &omen= 20 it hastened to add that =the previous $aturali"ation -ct, e.isting at the time, ... re0uired that the person appl(ing for its benefits should be (not onl() a =free &hite person= (but also) ... not an alien enem(.= This is simpl( because under the $aturali"ation #a& of the ?nited %tates at the time the case &as decided, the dis0ualification of enem( aliens had alread( been removed b( the -ct of Jul( :B, )+):, as ma( be seen in the corresponding footnote hereof anon. 9n other &ords, if in the case of Eell. v. Owen onl( the race re0uirement &as mentioned, the reason &as that there &as no other nonCracial re0uirement or no more alien enem( dis0ualification at the time3 and this is demonstrated b( the fact that the court took care to make it clear that under the previous naturali"ation la&, there &as also such re0uirement in addition to race. This is

impotent, since as stated in re Rustigian, )5> !ed. Rep. *+B, =The e.pression used b( 'r. Justice !ield, (in Nell( v. &en) the terms =&ho might la&full( be naturali"ed under e.isting la&s= onl( limit the application of the la& to free &hite &omen, must be interpreted in the application to the special facts and to the incapacities under the then e.isting la&s,= (at p. *+4) meaning that &hether or not an alien &ife marr(ing a citi"en &ould be a citi"en &as dependent, not onl( on her race and nothing more necessaril(, but on &hether or not there &ere other dis0ualifications under the la& in force at the time of her marriage or the naturali"ation of her husband. A. -s alread( stated, in #o %an Tuang, Cho( Ning Tee and the second #( Fiok Ha, the Court dre& the evidence that because %ection ) of -ct 4*4, &as eliminated b( Common&ealth -ct A,:, it follo&s that in place of the said eliminated section particularl( its subdivision (c), being the criterion of &hether or not an alien &ife =ma( be la&full( naturali"ed,= &hat should be re0uired is not onl( that she must not be dis0ualified under %ection A but that she must also possess the 0ualifications enumerated in %ection 4, such as those of age, residence, good moral character, adherence to the underl(ing principles of the 2hilippine Constitution, irreproachable conduct, lucrative emplo(ment or o&nership of real estate, capacit( to speak and &rite English or %panish and one of the principal local languages, education of children in certain schools, etc., thereb( impl(ing that, in effect, sails %ection 4 has been purposel( intended to take the place of %ection ) of -ct 4*4,. ?pon further consideration of the proper premises, 6e have come, to the conclusion that such inference is not sufficientl( 7ustified. To begin &ith, nothing e.tant in the legislative histor(, &hich 6e have alread( e.plained above of the mentioned provisions has been sho&n or can be sho&n to indicate that such &as the clear intent of the legislature. Rather, &hat is definite is that %ection )> is, an e.act cop( of %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of the ?nited %tates, &hich, at the time of the approval of Common&ealth -ct A,: had

alread( a settled construction b( -merican courts and administrative authorities. %econdl(, as ma( be gleaned from the summar( of pertinent -merican decisions 0uoted above, there can be no doubt that in the construction of the identicall( &orded provision in the Revised %tatutes of the ?nited %tates, (%ection )**A, &hich &as taken, from the -ct of !ebruar( )B, )+>>) all authorities in the ?nited %tates are unanimousl( agreed that the 0ualifications of residence, good moral character, adherence to the Constitution, etc. are not supposed to be considered, and that the onl( eligibilit( to be taken into account is that of the race or class to &hich the sub7ect belongs, the conceptual scope of &hich, 6e have 7ust discussed. 21 9n the ver( case of Leonard v. 8rant, supra, discussed b( Justice Regala in #o %an Tuang, the e.planation for such posture of the -merican authorities &as made thus1 The phrase, =shall be deemed a citi"en= in section )**A Rev. %t., or as it &as in the -ct of )+>>, supra, =shall be deemed and taken to be a citi"en= &hile it ma( impl( that the person to &hom it relates has not actuall( become a citi"en b( ordinar( means or in the usual &a(, as b( the 7udgment of a competent court, upon a proper application and proof, (et it does not follo& that such person is on that account practicall( an( the less a citi"en. The &ord =deemed= is the e0uivalent of =considered= or =7udged=3 and, therefore, &hatever an act of Congress re0uires to be =deemed= or =taken= as true of an( person or thing, must, in la&, be considered as having been dul( ad7udged or established concerning =such person or thing, and have force and effect accordingl(. 6hen, therefore, Congress declares that an alien &oman shall, under certain circumstances,

be =deemedE an -merican citi"en, the effect &hen the contingenc( occurs, is e0uivalent to her being naturali"ed directl( b( an act of Congress, or in the usual mode thereb( prescribed. ?nless 6e disregard no& the long settled familiar rule of statutor( construction that in a situation like this &herein our legislature has copied an -merican statute &ord for &ord, it is understood that the construction alread( given to such statute before its being copied constitute part of our o&n la&, there seems to be no reason ho& 6e can give a different connotation or meaning to the provision in 0uestion. -t least, 6e have alread( seen that the vie&s sustaining the contrar( conclusion appear to be based on in accurate factual premises related to the real legislative background of the framing of our naturali"ation la& in its present form. Thirdl(, the idea of e0uating the 0ualifications enumerated in %ection 4 of Common&ealth -ct A,: &ith the eligibilit( re0uirements of %ection ) of -ct 4*4, cannot bear close scrutin( from an( point of vie&. There is no 0uestion that %ection 4 of Common&ealth -ct A,: is more or less substantiall( the same as %ection : of -ct 4*4,. 9n other &ords, %ection ) of -ct 4*4, coCe.isted alread( &ith practicall( the same provision as %ection 4 of Common&ealth -ct A,:. 9f it &ere true that the phrase =&ho ma( be la&full( naturali"ed= in %ection ): (a) of -ct 4*4,, as amended b( -ct :AA+, referred to the soCcalled racial re0uirement in %ection ) of the same -ct, &ithout regard to the provisions of %ection : thereof, ho& could the elimination of %ection ) have the effect of shifting the reference to %ection :, &hen precisel(, according to the -merican 7urisprudence, &hich &as prevailing at the time Common&ealth -ct A,: &as approved, such 0ualifications as &ere embodied in said %ection :, &hich had their counterpart in the corresponding -merican statutes, are not supposed to be taken into account and that &hat should be considered onl( are the re0uirements similar to those provided for in said %ection ) together &ith the dis0ualifications enumerated in %ection AD

!ourthl(, it is difficult to conceive that the phrase =&ho might be la&full( naturali"ed= in %ection )> could have been intended to conve( a meaning different than that given to it b( the -merican courts and administrative authorities. -s alread( stated, -ct :AA+ &hich contained said phrase and from &hich it &as taken b( Common&ealth -ct A,:, &as enacted in )*4+. /( that, time, %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of the ?nited %tates &as no longer in force because it had been repealed e.pressl( the -ct of %eptember 44, )*44 &hich did a&a( &ith the automatic naturali"ation of alien &ives of -merican citi"ens and re0uired, instead, that the( submit to regular naturali"ation proceedings, albeit under more liberal terms than those of other applicants. 9n other &ords, &hen our legislature adopted the phrase in 0uestion, &hich, as alread( demonstrated, had a definite construction in -merican la&, the -mericans had alread( abandoned said phraseolog( in favor of a categorical compulsion for alien &ives to be natural 7udiciall(. %imple logic &ould seem to dictate that, since our la&makers, at the time of the approval of -ct :AA+, had t&o choices, one to adopt the phraseolog( of %ection )**A &ith its settled construction and the other to follo& the ne& posture of the -mericans of re0uiring 7udicial naturali"ation and it appears that the( have opted for the first, 6e have no alternative but to conclude that our la& still follo&s the old or previous -merican #a& n the sub7ect. 9ndeed, &hen Common&ealth -ct A,: &as approved in )*:*, the 2hilippine #egislature, alread( autonomous then from the -merican Congress, had a clearer chance to disregard the old -merican la& and make one of our o&n, or, at least, follo& the trend of the -ct of the ?.%. Congress of )*44, but still, our legislators chose to maintain the language of the old la&. 6hat then is significantl( important is not that the legislature maintained said phraseolog( after %ection ) of -ct 4*4, &as eliminated, but that it continued insisting on using it even after the -mericans had amended their la& in order to provide for &hat is no& contended to be the construction that should be given to the phrase in 0uestion. %tated differentl(, had our legislature adopted a phrase from an -merican statute before the -merican courts had given it a construction

&hich &as ac0uiesced to b( those given upon to appl( the same, it &ould be possible for ?s to adopt a construction here different from that of the -mericans, but as things stand, the fact is that our legislature borro&ed the phrase &hen there &as alread( a settled construction thereof, and &hat is more, it appears that our legislators even ignored the modification of the -merican la& and persisted in maintaining the old phraseolog(. ?nder these circumstances, it &ould be in defiance of reason and the principles of %tatutor( construction to sa( that %ection )> has a nationalistic and selective orientation and that it should be construed independentl( of the previous -merican posture because of the difference of circumstances here and in the ?nited %tates. 9t is al&a(s safe to sa( that in the construction of a statute, 6e cannot fall on possible 7udicial fiat or perspective &hen the demonstrated legislative point of vie& seems to indicate other&ise. >. 8ie&ing the matter from another angle, there is need to emphasi"e that in realit( and in effect, the so called racial re0uirements, &hether under the -merican la&s or the 2hilippine la&s, have hardl( been considered as 0ualifications in the same sense as those enumerated in %ection : of -ct 4*4, and later in %ection 4 of Common&ealth -ct A,:. 'ore accuratel(, the( have al&a(s been considered as dis0ualifications, in the sense that those &ho did not possess them &ere the ones &ho could not =be la&full( naturali"ed,= 7ust as if the( &ere suffering from an( of the dis0ualifications under %ection 4 of -ct 4*4, and later those under %ection A of Common&ealth -ct A,:, &hich, incidentall(, are practicall( identical to those in the former la&, e.cept those in paragraphs (f) and (h) of the latter. 22 9ndeed, such is the clear impression an(one &ill surel( get after going over all the -merican decisions and opinions 0uoted andLor cited in the latest ?%C- ()*,B), Title +, section )A:B, pp. >*+C5B4, and the first decisions of this Court on the matter, #( Fiok Ha ()*>*) and Ricardo Cua, citing &ith approval the opinions of the secretar( of Justice. 23 %uch being the case, that is, that the soCcalled racial re0uirements &ere al&a(s treated as dis0ualifications in the same light as the other dis0ualifications under the la&,

&h( should their elimination not be vie&ed or understood as a subtraction from or a lessening of the dis0ualificationsD 6h( should such elimination have instead the meaning that &hat &ere previousl( considered as irrelevant 0ualifications have become dis0ualifications, as seems to be the import of the holding in Cho( Ning Tee to the effect that the retention in %ection )> of Common&ealth -ct A,: of the same language of &hat used to be %ection ): (a) of -ct 4*4, (as amended b( -ct :AA+), not&ithstanding the elimination of %ection ) of the latter, necessaril( indicates that the legislature had in mind making the phrase in 0uestion =&ho ma( be la&full( naturali"ed= refer no longer to an( racial dis0ualification but to the 0ualification under %ection 4 of Common&ealth -ct A,:D ther&ise stated, under -ct 4*4,, there &ere t&o groups of persons that could not be naturali"ed, namel(, those falling under %ection ) and those falling under %ection 4, and surel(, the elimination of one group, i.e. those belonging to %ection ), could not have had, b( an( process of reasoning, the effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, the dis0ualifications that used to be before such elimination. 6e cannot see b( &hat alchem( of logic such elimination could have convicted 0ualifications into dis0ualifications speciall( in the light of the fact that, after all, these are dis0ualifications clearl( set out as such in the la& distinctl( and separatel( from 0ualifications and, as alread( demonstrated, in -merican 7urisprudence, 0ualifications had never been considered to be of an( relevance in determining =&ho might be la&full( naturali"ed,= as such phrase is used in the statute governing the status of alien &ives of -merican citi"ens, and our la& on the matter &as merel( copied verbatim from the -merican statutes. 5. 9n addition to these arguments based on the applicable legal provisions and 7udicial opinions, &hether here or in the ?nited %tates, there are practical considerations that militate to&ards the same conclusions. -s aptl( stated in the motion for reconsideration of counsel for petitionerCappellee dated !ebruar( 4:, )*5,, filed in the case of ,ita Ngo Burca v. %epu*lic, supra1

?nreasonableness of re0uiring alien &ife to prove =0ualifications= H There is one practical consideration that strongl( militates against a construction that %ection )> of the la& re0uires that an alien &ife of a !ilipino must affirmativel( prove that she possesses the 0ualifications prescribed under %ection 4, before she ma( be deemed a citi"en. %uch condition, if imposed upon an alien &ife, becomes unreasonabl( onerous and compliance there&ith manifestl( difficult. The unreasonableness of such re0uirement is sho&n b( the follo&ing1 ). ne of the 0ualifications re0uired of an -pplicant for naturali"ation under %ection 4 of the la& is that the applicant =must have resided in the 2hilippines for a continuous period of not less than ten (ears.= 9f this re0uirement is applied to an alien &ife married to a !ilipino citi"en, this means that for a period of ten (ears at least, she cannot hope to ac0uire the citi"enship of her husband. 9f the &ife

happens to be a citi"en of a countr( &hose la& declares that upon her marriage to a foreigner she automaticall( loses her citi"enship and ac0uires the citi"enship of her husband, this could mean that for a period of ten (ears at least, she &ould be stateless. -nd even after having ac0uired continuous residence in the 2hilippines for ten (ears, there is no guarantee that her petition for naturali"ation &ill be granted, in &hich case she &ould remain stateless for an indefinite period of time. 4. %ection 4 of the la& like&ise re0uires of the applicant for naturali"ation that he =must o&n real estate in the 2hilippines &orth not less than five thousand pesos, 2hilippine

currenc(, or must have some kno&n lucrative trade, profession, or la&ful occupation.= Considering the constitutional prohibition against ac0uisition b( an alien of real estate e.cept in cases of hereditar( succession (-rt. M999, %ec. >, Constitution), an alien &ife desiring to ac0uire the citi"enship of her husband must have to prove that she has a lucrative income derived from a la&ful trade, profession or occupation. The income re0uirement has been interpreted to mean that the petitioner herself must be the one to possess the said income. (?( v. Republic, #C )*>,+, ct. 4,, )*5A3 Tanpa ng vs. Republic, #C 4B5B>, June :B, )*5>3 #i Tong 2ek v.

Republic, #C 4B*)4, $ovember 4*, )*5>). 9n other &ords, the &ife must prove that she has a lucrative income derived from sources other than her husbandEs trade, profession or calling. 9t is of common kno&ledge, and 7udicial notice ma( be taken of the fact that most &ives in the 2hilippines do not have gainful occupations of their o&n. 9ndeed, 2hilippine la&, recogni"ing the dependence of the &ife upon the husband, imposes upon the latter the dut( of supporting the former. (-rt. 4*), Civil Code). 9t should be borne in mind that universall(, it is an accepted concept that &hen a &oman marries, her primar( dut( is to be a &ife, mother and housekeeper. 9f an alien &ife

is not to be remiss in this dut(, ho& can she hope to ac0uire a lucrative income of her o&n to 0ualif( her for citi"enshipD :. ?nder %ection 4 of the la&, the applicant for naturali"ation =must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in an( of the public schools or private schools recogni"ed b( the ffice of the 2rivate Education of the 2hilippines, &here 2hilippine histor(, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum during the entire period of residence in the 2hilippines re0uired of him prior to the hearing of his petition for naturali"ation as 2hilippine citi"en.= 9f an alien &oman has minor children b( a

previous marriage to another alien before she marries a !ilipino, and such minor children had not been enrolled in 2hilippine schools during her period of residence in the countr(, she cannot 0ualif( for naturali"ation under the interpretation of this Court. The reason behind the re0uirement that children should be enrolled in recogni"ed educational institutions is that the( follo& the citi"enship of their father. (Chan Ho #a( v. Republic, #C >555, 'arch :B, )*>A3 Tan Hi v. Republic, ++ 2hil. )), ;)*>)<3 Hao #ian Chu v. Republic, +, 2hil. 55+ ;)*>B<3 @ap Chin v. Republic, #C A),,, 'a( 4*, )*>:3 #im #ian Hong v. Republic, #C :>,>, Gec. 45, )*>B). Considering

that said minor children b( her first husband generall( follo& the citi"enship of their alien father, the basis for such re0uirement as applied to her does not e.ist. Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa le5. A. ?nder %ection : of the la&, the )BC (ear continuous residence prescribed b( %ection 4 =shall be understood as reduced to five (ears for an( petitioner (&ho is) married to a !ilipino &oman.= 9t is absurd that an alien male married to a !ilipino &ife should be re0uired to reside onl( for five (ears in the 2hilippines to 0ualif( for citi"enship, &hereas an alien &oman married to a !ilipino husband must reside for ten (ears. Thus under the interpretation given b( this Court, it is more

difficult for an alien &ife related b( marriage to a !ilipino citi"en to become such citi"en, than for a foreigner &ho is not so related. -nd (et, it seems more than clear that the general purpose of the first paragraph of %ection )> &as obviousl( to accord to an alien &oman, b( reason of her marriage to a !ilipino, a privilege not similarl( granted to other aliens. 9t &ill be recalled that prior to the enactment of -ct $o. :AA+ in )*4+, amending -ct $o. 4*4, (the old $aturali"ation #a&), there &as no la& granting an( special privilege to alien &ives of !ilipinos. The( &ere treated as an( other foreigner. 9t &as precisel( to remed( this situation that the 2hilippine legislature enacted -ct $o. :AA+. n this point, the observation made b( the %ecretar( of Justice in )*A) is enlightening1 9t is true that under, -rticle 44 of the (%panish) Civil Code, the &ife follo&s the nationalit( of the husband3 but the Gepartment of %tate of the ?nited %tates on ctober :), )*4), ruled that the alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en is not a !ilipino citi"en, pointing out that our %upreme Court in the leading case of Roa v.

Collector of Customs (4: 2hil. :)>) held that -rticles ), to 4, of the Civil Code being political have been abrogated upon the cession of the 2hilippine 9slands to the ?nited %tates. -ccordingl(, the stated ta:en *. the Attorne.7 8eneral prior to the envict6ent of Act No. 1BBG, was that 6arriage of alien wo6en to -hilippine citi)ens did not 6a:e the for6er citi)ens of this counting. ( p. -tt(. Fen., 'arch )5, )*4+) . To re6ed. this ano6alous condition, Act No. 1BBG was enacted in /0AG adding section /1HaI to Act No. A0A3 which provides that <an. wo6an who is now or 6a. hereafter *e 6arried to a citi)en of the -hilippine !slands, and who 6ight

herself *e lawfull. naturali)ed, shall *e dee6ed a citi)en of the -hilippine !slands. ( p. $o. 44, s. )*A)3 emphasis ours). 9f %ection )> of the, Revised $aturali"ation #a& &ere to be interpreted, as this Court did, in such a &a( as to re0uire that the alien &ife must prove the 0ualifications prescribed in %ection 4, the privilege granted to alien &ives &ould become illusor(. 9t is submitted that such a construction, being contrar( to the manifested ob7ect of the statute must be re7ected. - statute is to be construed &ith reference to its manifest ob7ect, and if the language is susceptible of t&o constructions, one &hich &ill carr( out and the other defeat such manifest ob7ect, it should receive the former construction. (9n re $ational Fuard, ,) 8t. A*:, A> -. )B>)3 %inger v. ?nited %tates, :4: ?.%. ::+, +* #. ed. 4+>. %ee also, ?.%.

v. $avarro, )* 2hil. ):A ;)*))<3 ?. %. v. Toribio, )> 2hil. +> ;)*)B). ... construction &hich &ill cause ob7ectionable results should be avoided and the court &ill, if possible, place on the statute a construction &hich &ill not result in in7ustice, and in accordance &ith the decisions construing statutes, a construction &hich &ill result in oppression, hardship, or inconvenience s &ill also be avoided, as &ill a construction &hich &ill pre7udice public interest, or construction resulting in unreasonablen ess, as &ell as a construction &hich &ill result in absurd conse0uences. %o a construction should, if possible, be avoided if the result &ould be an apparent

inconsistenc( in legislative intent, as has been determined b( the 7udicial decisions, or &hich &ould result in futilit(, redundanc(, or a conclusion not contemplated b( the legislature3 and the court should adopt that construction &hich &ill be the least likel( to produce mischief. ?nless plainl( sho&n to have been the intention of the legislature, an interpretation &hich &ould render the re0uirements of the statute uncertain and vague is to be avoided, and the court &ill not ascribe to the legislature an intent to confer an illusor( right. ... (+4 C.J.%., %tatutes, sec. :45, pp. 54:C 5:4). ,. 9n Cho( Ning Tee and the second #( Fiok Ha, emphasis &as laid on the need for aligning the construction of %ection )> &ith =the national polic( of selective admission to 2hilippine citi"enship.= /ut the 0uestion ma( be asked, is it reasonable to suppose that in

the pursuit of such polic(, the legislature contemplated to make it more difficult if not practicall( impossible in some instances, for an alien &oman marr(ing a !ilipino to become a !ilipina than an( ordinar( applicant for naturali"ation, as has 7ust been demonstrated aboveD 9t seems but natural and logical to assume that %ection )> &as intended to e.tend special treatment to alien &omen &ho b( marr(ing a !ilipino irrevocabl( deliver themselves, their possessions, their fate and fortunes and all that marriage implies to a citi"en of this countr(, =for better or for &orse.= 2erhaps there can and &ill be cases &herein the personal conveniences and benefits arising from 2hilippine citi"enship ma( motivate such marriage, but must the minorit(, as such cases are bound to be, serve as the criterion for the construction of la&D 'oreover, it is not farfetched to believe that in 7oining a !ilipino famil( the alien &oman is someho& disposed to assimilate the customs, beliefs and ideals of !ilipinos among &hom, after all, she has to live and associate, but surel(, no one should e.pect her to do so even before marriage. /esides, it ma( be considered that in realit( the e.tension of citi"enship to her is made b( the la& not so much for her sake as for the husband. 9ndeed, 6e find the follo&ing observations anent the national polic( rationali"ation in Cho( Ning Tee and #( Fiok Ha (the second) to be 0uite persuasive1 6e respectfull( suggest that this articulation of the national polic( begs the 0uestion. The avo&ed polic( of =selectives admission= more particularl( refers to a case &here citi"enship is sought to *e ac(uired in a 7udicial proceeding for naturali"ation. 9n such a case, the courts should no doubt appl( the national polic( of selecting onl( those &ho are &orth( to become citi"ens. There is here a choice bet&een accepting or re7ecting the application for citi"enship. /ut this polic( finds no application in cases &here citi"enship is conferred *. operation of law . 9n such

cases, the courts have no choice to accept or re7ect. 9f the individual claiming citi"enship b( operation of la& proves in legal proceedings that he satisfies the statutor( re0uirements, the courts cannot do other&ise than to declare that he is a citi"en of the 2hilippines. Thus, an individual &ho is able to prove that his father is a 2hilippine citi"en, is a citi"en of the 2hilippines, =irrespective of his moral character, ideological beliefs, and identification &ith !ilipino ideals, customs, and traditions.= - minor child of a person naturali"ed under the la&, &ho is able to prove the fact of his birth in the 2hilippines, is like&ise a citi"en, regardless of &hether he has lucrative income, or he adheres to the principles of the Constitution. %o it is &ith an alien &ife of a 2hilippine citi"en. %he is re0uired to prove onl( that she ma( herself be la&full( naturali"ed, i.e., that she is not one of the dis0ualified persons enumerated in %ection A of the la&, in order to establish her citi"enship status as a fact. paramount polic( consideration of graver import should not be overlooked in this regard, for it e.plains and 7ustifies the obviousl( deliberate choice of &ords. 9t is universall( accepted that a %tate, in e.tending the privilege of citi"enship to an alien &ife of one of its citi"ens could have had no other ob7ective than to maintain a unit. of allegiance among the members of the famil(. ($elson v. $elson, )): $eb. A>:, 4B: $. 6. 5AB ;)*4><3 see also =Convention on the

$ationalit( of 'arried 6omen1 Historical /ackground and Commentar(.= ?$9TEG $-T9 $%, Gepartment of Economic and %ocial -ffairs ELC$, 5L:**, pp. + et se(.). "uch o*'ective can onl. *e satisfactoril. achieved *. allowing the wife to ac(uire citi)enship derivativel. through the hus*and. This is particularl( true in the 2hilippines &here tradition and la& has placed the husband as head of the famil(, &hose personal status and decisions govern the life of the famil( group. Corollar( to this, our la&s look &ith favor on the unit( and solidarit( of the famil( (-rt. 44B, Civil Code), in &hose preservation of %tate as a vital and enduring interest. (%ee -rt. 4)5, Civil Code). Thus, it has been said that b( tradition in our countr(, there is a theoretic identit( of person and interest bet&een husband and &ife, and from the nature of the relation, the home of one is that of the other. (%ee Ge la 8iKa v. 8illareal, A) 2hil. ):). 9t should like&ise be said that because of the theoretic identit( of husband and &ife, and the primac( of the husband, the nationalit( of husband should be the nationalit( of the &ife, and the la&s upon one should be the la& upon the other. !or as the court, in Hop:ins v. $achant (*th Cir., )*BA) 5> C.C.-., ), ):B !ed. +:*, held1 =The status of the &ife follo&s that of the husband, ... and b( virtue of her marriage her husbandEs domicile became her domicile.= -nd the presumption under 2hilippine la& being that the propert. relations of husband and &ife are under the regime of

con7ugal partnership (-rt. ))*, Civil Code), the income of one is also that of the other. 9t is, therefore, not congruent &ith our cherished traditions of famil( unit( and identit( that a husband should be a citi"en and the &ife an alien, and that the national treatment of one should be different from that of the other. Thus, it cannot be that the husbandEs interests in propert( and business activities reserved b( la& to citi"ens should not form part of the con7ugal partnership and be denied to the &ife, nor that she herself cannot, through her o&n efforts but for the benefit of the partnership, ac0uire such interests. nl( in rare instances should the identit( of husband and &ife be refused recognition, and &e submit that in respect of our citi"enship la&s, it should onl( be in the instances &here the &ife suffers from the dis0ualifications stated in %ection A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&. ('otion for Reconsideration, Burca vs. %epu*lic, supra.) 6ith all these considerations in mind, 6e are persuaded that it is in the best interest of all concerned that %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a& be given effect in the same &a( as it &as understood and construed &hen the phrase =&ho ma( be la&full( naturali"ed,= found in the -merican statute from &hich it &as borro&ed and copied verbatim, &as applied b( the -merican courts and administrative authorities. There is merit, of course in the vie& that 2hilippine statutes should be construed in the light of 2hilippine circumstances, and &ith particular reference to our naturali"ation la&s. 6e should reali"e the disparit( in the circumstances bet&een the ?nited %tates, as the soCcalled =melting pot= of peoples from all over the &orld, and the 2hilippines as a developing countr( &hose

Constitution is nationalistic almost in the come. Certainl(, the &riter of this opinion cannot be the last in rather passionatel( insisting that our 7urisprudence should speak our o&n concepts and resort to -merican authorities, to be sure, entitled to admiration, and respect, should not be regarded as source of pride and indisputable authorit(. %till, 6e cannot close our e(es to the undeniable fact that the provision of la& no& under scrutin( has no local origin and orientation3 it is purel( -merican, factuall( taken bodil( from -merican la& &hen the 2hilippines &as under the dominating influence of statutes of the ?nited %tates Congress. 9t is indeed a sad commentar( on the &ork of our o&n legislature of the late )*4BEs and )*:BEs that given the opportunit( to break a&a( from the old -merican pattern, it took no step in that direction. 9ndeed, even after -merica made it patentl( clear in the -ct of Congress of %eptember 44, )*44 that alien &omen marr(ing -mericans cannot be citi"ens of the ?nited %tates &ithout undergoing naturali"ation proceedings, our legislators still chose to adopt the previous -merican la& of -ugust )B, )+>> as embodied later in %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of )+,A, 6hich, it is &orth reiterating, &as consistentl( and uniforml( understood as conferring -merican citi"enship to alien &omen marr(ing -mericans ipso facto, &ithout having to submit to an( naturali"ation proceeding and &ithout having to prove that the( possess the special 0ualifications of residence, moral character, adherence to -merican ideals and -merican constitution, provided the( sho& the( did not suffer from an( of the dis0ualifications enumerated in the -merican $aturali"ation #a&. -ccordingl(, 6e no& hold, all previous decisions of this Court indicating other&ise not&ithstanding, that under %ection )> of Common&ealth -ct A,:, an alien &oman marr(ing a !ilipino, native born or naturali"ed, becomes ipso facto a !ilipina provided she is not dis0ualified to be a citi"en of the 2hilippines under %ection A of the same la&. #ike&ise, an alien &oman married to an alien &ho is subse0uentl( naturali"ed here follo&s the 2hilippine citi"enship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as !ilipino citi"en, provided that

she does not suffer from an( of dis0ualifications under said %ection A.

the

-s under an( other la& rich in benefits for those coming under it, doubtless there &ill be instances &here unscrupulous persons &ill attempt to take advantage of this provision of la& b( entering into fake and fictitious marriages or 6ala fide matrimonies. 6e cannot as a matter of la& hold that 7ust because of these possibilities, the construction of the provision should be other&ise than as dictated ine.orabl( b( more ponderous relevant considerations, legal, 7uridical and practical. There can al&a(s be means of discovering such undesirable practice and ever( case can be dealt &ith accordingl( as it arises. 999. The third aspect of this case re0uires necessaril( a reCe.amination of the ruling of this Court in /urca, supra, regarding the need of 7udicial naturali"ation proceedings before the alien &ife of a !ilipino ma( herself be considered or deemed a !ilipino. 9f this case &hich, as alread( noted, &as submitted for decision in )*5A (et, had onl( been decided earlier, before Fo 9m T(, the foregoing discussions &ould have been sufficient to dispose of it. The Court could have held that despite her apparent lack of 0ualifications, her marriage to her coCpetitioner made her a !ilipina, &ithout her undergoing an( naturali"ation proceedings, provided she could sustain, her claim that she is not dis0ualified under %ection A of the la&. /ut as things stand no&, &ith the /urca ruling, the 0uestion 6e have still to decide is, ma( she be deemed a !ilipina &ithout submitting to a naturali"ation proceedingD $aturall(, if /urca is to be follo&ed, it is clear that the ans&er to this 0uestion must necessaril( be in the affirmative. -s alread( stated, ho&ever, the decision in /urca has not (et become final because there is still pending &ith ?s a motion for its reconsideration &hich vigorousl( submits grounds &orth( of serious consideration b( this Court. n this account, and for the reasons e.pounded earlier in this

opinion, this case is as good an occasion as an( other to reCe.amine the issue. 9n the said decision, Justice %anche" held for the Court1 6e accordingl( rule that1 ()) -n alien &oman married to a !ilipino &ho desires to be a citi"en of this countr( must appl( therefore b( filing a petition for citi"enship reciting that she possesses all the 0ualifications set forth in %ection 4 and none of the dis0ualifications under %ection A, both of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&3 (4) %aid petition must be filed in the Court of !irst 9nstance &here petitioner has resided at least one (ear immediatel( preceding the filing of the petition3 and (:) -n( action b( an( other office, agenc(, board or official, administrative or other&ise H other than the 7udgment of a competent court of 7ustice H certif(ing or declaring that an alien &ife of the !ilipino citi"en is also a !ilipino citi"en, is hereb( declared null and void. :. 6e treat the present petition as one for naturali"ation. r, in the &ords of la&, a =petition for citi"enship=. This is as it should be. /ecause a reading of the petition &ill reveal at once that efforts &ere made to set forth therein, and to prove after&ards, compliance &ith %ections 4 and A of the Revised $aturali"ation la&. The trial court itself apparentl( considered the petition as one for naturali"ation, and, in fact, declared petitioner =a citi"en of the 2hilippines.=

9n other &ords, under this holding, in order for an alien &oman marr(ing a !ilipino to be vested &ith !ilipino citi"enship, it is not enough that she possesses the 0ualifications prescribed b( %ection 4 of the la& and none of the dis0ualifications enumerated in its %ection A. ver and above all these, she has to pass thru the &hole process of 7udicial naturali"ation apparentl( from declaration of intention to oathtaking, before she can become a !ilipina. 9n plain &ords, her marriage to a !ilipino is absolutel( of no conse0uence to her nationalit( visCaCvis that of her !ilipino husband3 she remains to be the national of the countr( to &hich she o&ed allegiance before her marriage, and if she desires to be of one nationalit( &ith her husband, she has to &ait for the same time that an( other applicant for naturali"ation needs to complete, the re0uired period of ten (ear residence, gain the kno&ledge of English or %panish and one of the principle local languages, make her children stud( in !ilipino schools, ac0uire real propert( or engage in some la&ful occupation of her o&n independentl( of her husband, file her declaration of intention and after one (ear her application for naturali"ation, &ith the affidavits of t&o credible &itnesses of her good moral character and other 0ualifications, etc., etc., until a decision is ordered in her favor, after &hich, she has to undergo the t&o (ears of probation, and onl( then, but not before she takes her oath as citi"en, &ill she begin to be considered and deemed to be a citi"en of the 2hilippines. /riefl(, she can become a !ilipino citi"en onl( b( 7udicial declaration. %uch being the import of the CourtEs ruling, and it being 0uite obvious, on the other hand, upon a cursor( reading of the provision, in 0uestion, that the la& intends b( it to spell out &hat is the =effect of naturali"ation on (the) &ife and children= of an alien, as plainl( indicated b( its title, and inasmuch as the language of the provision itself clearl( conve(s the thought that some effect beneficial to the &ife is intended b( it, rather than that she is not in an( manner to be benefited thereb(, it behooves ?s to take a second hard look at the ruling, if onl( to see &hether or not the Court might have

overlooked an( relevant consideration &arranting a conclusion different from that complained therein. 9t is undeniable that the issue before ?s is of grave importance, considering its conse0uences upon tens of thousands of persons affected b( the ruling therein made b( the Court, and surel(, it is for ?s to avoid, &henever possible, that ur decision in an( case should produce an( adverse effect upon them not contemplated either b( the la& or b( the national polic( it seeks to endorse. -'9C9 C?R9-E in the /urca case, respectable and impressive b( their number and standing in the /ar and &ell kno&n for their reputation for intellectual integrit(, legal acumen and incisive and comprehensive resourcefulness in research, trul( evident in the 0ualit( of the memorandum the( have submitted in said case, invite ur attention to the impact of the decision therein thus1 The doctrine announced b( this Honorable Court for the first time in the present case CC that an alien &oman &ho marries a 2hilippine citi"en not onl( does not ipso facto herself become a citi"en but can ac0uire such citi"enship onl( through ordinar( naturali"ation proceedings under the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, and that all administrative actions =certif(ing or declaring such &oman to be a 2hilippine citi"en are null and void= H has conse0uences that reach far be(ond the confines of the present case. Considerabl( more people are affected, and affected deepl(, than simpl( 'rs. Jita $. /urca. The ne&spapers report that as man( as )> thousand &omen married to 2hilippine citi"ens are affected b( this decision of the Court. These are &omen of man( and diverse nationalities, including Chinese, %panish, /ritish,

-merican, Columbian, !innish, Japanese, Chilean, and so on. These members of the communit(, some of &hom have been married to citi"ens for t&o or three decades, have all e.ercised rights and privileges reserved b( la& to 2hilippine citi"ens. The( &ill have ac0uired, separatel( or in con7ugal partnership &ith their citi"en husbands, real propert(, and the( &ill have sold and transferred such propert(. 'an( of these &omen ma( be in professions membership in &hich is limited to citi"ens. thers are doubtless stockholders or officers or emplo(ees in companies engaged in business activities for &hich a certain percentage of !ilipino e0uit( content is prescribed b( la&. -ll these married &omen are no& faced &ith possible divestment of personal status and of rights ac0uired and privileges e.ercised in reliance, in complete good faith, upon a reading of the la& that has been accepted as correct for more than t&o decades b( the ver( agencies of government charged &ith the administration of that la&. 6e must respectfull( suggest that 7udicial doctrines &hich &ould visit such comprehensive and farC reaching in7ur( upon the &ives and mothers of 2hilippine citi"ens deserve intensive scrutin( and ree.amination. To be sure, this appeal can be no less than &hat this Court attended to in 8an Tsitung vs. %epu*lic, F.R. $o. #C4B+)*, !eb. 4), )*5,, )* %CR- AB) H &hen Chief Justice Concepcion observed1 The Court reali"es, ho&ever, that the rulings in the /arretto

and Gelgado cases H although referring to situations the e0uities of &hich are not identical to those obtaining in the case at bar H ma( have contributed materiall( to the irregularities committed therein and in other analogous cases, and induced the parties concerned to believe, although erroneousl(, that the procedure follo&ed &as valid under the la&. -ccordingl(, and in vie& of the implications of the issue under consideration, the %olicitor Feneral &as re0uired, not onl(, to comment thereon, but, also, to state =ho& man( cases there are, like the one at bar, in &hich certificates of naturali"ation have been issued after notice of the filing of the petition for naturali"ation had been published in the fficial Fa"ette onl( once, &ithin the periods (a) from Januar( 4+, )*>B= (&hen the decision in Gelgado v. Republic &as promulgated) =to 'a( 4*, )*>,= (&hen the ng %on Cui &as decided) =and (b) from 'a( 4*, )*>, to $ovember 4*, )*5>= (&hen the decision in the present case &as rendered). -fter mature deliberation, and in the light of the reasons adduced in appellantEs motion for reconsideration and in the repl( thereto of the Fovernment, as &ell as of the data contained in the latter, the Court holds that the doctrine laid do&n in the ng %on Cui case shall appl( and affect the validit( of certificates of naturali"ation issued after, not on or before 'a( 4*, )*>,.

Here 6e are met again b( the same problem. 9n 8an Tsitung, the Court had to e.pressl( en7oin the prospective application of its construction of the la& made in a previous decision, 2; &hich had alread( become final, to serve the ends of 7ustice and e0uit(. 9n the case at bar, 6e do not have to go that far. -s alread( observed, the decision in /urca still under reconsideration, &hile the ruling in Lee "uan A., Lo "an Tuang, Cho. Eing Tee and others that follo&ed them have at the most become the la& of the case onl( for the parties thereto. 9f there are good grounds therefor, all 6e have to do no& is to ree.amine the said rulings and clarif( or modif( them. !or read( reference, 6e re0uote %ection )>1 %ec. )>. ffect of the naturali)ation on wife and children. H -n( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines, and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 'inor children of persons naturali"ed under this la& &ho have been born in the 2hilippines shall be considered citi"ens thereof. - foreignCborn minor child, if d&elling in the 2hilippines at the time of naturali"ation of the parents, shall automaticall( become a 2hilippine citi"en, and a foreignCborn minor child, &ho is not in the 2hilippines at the time the parent is naturali"ed, shall be deemed a 2hilippine citi"en onl( during his minorit(, unless he begins to reside permanentl( in the 2hilippines &hen still a minor, in &hich case, he &ill continue to be a 2hilippine citi"en even after becoming of age.

- child born outside of the 2hilippines after the naturali"ation of his parent, shall be considered a 2hilippine citi"en, unless &ithin one (ear after reaching the age of ma7orit(, he fails to register himself as a 2hilippine citi"en at the -merican Consulate of the countr( &here he resides, and to take the necessar( oath of allegiance. 9t is obvious that the main sub7ectCmatter and purpose of the statute, the Revised $aturali"ation #a& or Common&ealth -ct A,:, as a &hole, is to establish a complete procedure for the 7udicial conferment of the status of citi"enship upon 0ualified aliens. -fter la(ing out such a procedure, remarkable for its elaborate and careful inclusion of all safeguards against the possibilit( of an( undesirable persons becoming a part of our citi"enr(, it carefull( but categoricall( states the conse0uence of the naturali"ation of an alien undergoing such procedure it prescribes upon the members of his immediate famil(, his &ife and children, 2) and, to that end, in no uncertain terms it ordains that1 (a) all his minor children &ho have been born in the 2hilippines shall be =considered citi"ens= also3 (b) all such minor children, if born outside the 2hilippines but d&elling here at the time of such naturali"ation =shall automaticall( become= !ilipinos also, but those not born in the 2hilippines and not in the 2hilippines at the time of such naturali"ation, are also redeemed citi"ens of this countr( provided that the( shall lose said status if the( transfer their permanent residence to a foreign countr( before becoming of age3 (c) all such minor children, if born outside of the 2hilippines after such naturali"ation, shall also be =considered= !ilipino citi"ens, unless the( e.patriate themselves b( failing to register as !ilipinos at the 2hilippine (-merican) Consulate of the countr( &here the( reside and take the necessar( oath of allegiance3 and (d) as to the &ife, she =shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines= if she is one =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed=. 28

$o doubt &hatever is entertained, so Burca holds ver( correctl(, as to the point that the minor children, falling &ithin the conditions of place and time of birth and residence prescribed in the provision, are vested &ith 2hilippine citi"enship directl( b( legislative fiat or b( force of the la& itself and &ithout the need for an( 7udicial proceeding or declaration. (-t p. )*4, )* %CR-). 9ndeed, the language of the provision, is not susceptible of an( other interpretation. /ut it is claimed that the same e.pression =shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines= in reference to the &ife, does not necessaril( connote the vesting of citi"enship status upon her b( legislative fiat because the antecedent phrase re0uiring that she must be one =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= implies that such status is intended to attach onl( after she has undergone the &hole process of 7udicial naturali"ation re0uired of an( person desiring to become a !ilipino. %tated other&ise, the ruling in Burca is that &hile %ection )> envisages and intends legislative naturali"ation as to the minor children, the same section deliberatel( treats the &ife differentl( and leaves her out for the ordinar( 7udicial naturali"ation. f course, it goes &ithout sa(ing that it is perfectl( &ithin the constitutional authorit( of the Congress of the 2hilippines to confer or vest citi"enship status b( legislative fiat. (?.%. v. 6ong Nim -rk, )5* ?.%. 5A*, A4 # ed. +*B ;)+*+<3 %ee, ) TaKada Q Carreon, 2olitical #a& of the 2hilippines )>4 ;)*5) ed.<) 9n fact, it has done so for particular individuals, like t&o foreign religious prelates, 2@ hence there is no reason it cannot do it for classes or groups of persons under general conditions applicable to all of the members of such class or group, like &omen &ho marr( !ilipinos, &hether nativeCborn or naturali"ed. The issue before ?s in this case is &hether or not the legislature hag done so in the disputed provisions of %ection )> of the $aturali"ation #a&. -nd Gr. 8icente F. %inco, one of the most respect authorities on political la& in the 2hilippines 2& observes in this connection thus1 =- special form of naturali"ation is often observed b( some states &ith respect to &omen. Thus in the 2hilippines a foreign &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en becomes

ipso facto naturali"ed, if she belongs to an( of the classes &ho ma( appl( for naturali"ation under the 2hilippine #a&s.= (%inco, 2hil. 2olitical #a& A*+CA** ;)Bth ed. )*>A<3 emphasis ours3 this comment is substantiall( reiterated in the )*54 edition, citing #( Fiok Ha and Ricardo Cua, supra.) 'ore importantl(, it ma( be stated, at this 7uncture, that in construing the provision of the ?nited %tates statutes from &hich our la& has been copied, 2&( the -merican courts have held that the alien &ife does not ac0uire -merican citi"enship b( choice but b( operation of la&. =9n the Revised %tatutes the &ords =and taken= are omitted. The effect of this statute is that ever( alien &oman &ho marries a citi"en of the ?nited %tates becomes perforce a citi"en herself, &ithout the formalit( of naturali"ation, and regardless of her &ish in that respect.= (?%C- +, p. 5B) ;)*,B ed.<, citing 'acken"ie v. Hare, )*):, ):A 2. ,):, )5> Cal. ,55, affirmed :5 %. Ct. )B5, 4:* ?.%. 4**, 5B # ed. 4*,.) . 6e need not recount here again ho& this provision in 0uestion &as first enacted as paragraph (a) of %ection ):, b( &a( of an insertion into -ct 4*4, b( -ct :AA+ of $ovember :B, )*4+, and that, in turn, and paragraph &as copied verbatim from %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes of the ?nited %tates, &hich b( that time alread( had a long accepted construction among the courts and administrative authorities in that countr( holding that under such provision an alien &oman &ho married a citi"en became, upon such marriage, like&ise a citi"en b( force of la& and as a conse0uence of the marriage itself &ithout having to undergo an( naturali"ation proceedings, provided that, it could be sho&n that at the time of such marriage, she &as not dis0ualified to be naturali"ed under the la&s then in force. To repeat the discussion 6e alread( made of these undeniable facts &ould unnecessaril( make this decision doubl( e.tensive. The onl( point &hich might be reiterated for emphasis at this 7uncture is that &hereas in the ?nited %tates, the -merican Congress, recogni"ing the construction, of %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes to be as stated above, and finding it desirable to avoid the effects of such

construction, approved the -ct of %eptember 44, )*44 E.plicitl( re0uiring all such alien &ives to submit to 7udicial naturali"ation albeit under more liberal terms than those for other applicants for citi"enship, on the other hand, the 2hilippine #egislature, instead of follo&ing suit and adopting such a re0uirement, enacted -ct :AA+ on $ovember :B, )*4+ &hich copied verbatim the aforementioned %ection )**A of the Revised %tatutes, thereb( indicating its preference to adopt the latter la& and its settled construction rather than the reform introduced b( the -ct of )*44. bviousl(, these considerations leave ?s no choice. 'uch as this Court ma( feel that as the ?nited %tates herself has evidentl( found it to be an improvement of her national polic( visCaCvis the alien &ives of her citi"ens to discontinue their automatic incorporation into the bod( of her citi"enr( &ithout passing through the 7udicial scrutin( of a naturali"ation proceeding, as it used to be before )*44, it seems but proper, &ithout evidencing an( bit of colonial mentalit(, that as a developing countr(, the 2hilippines adopt a similar polic(, unfortunatel(, the manner in &hich our o&n legislature has enacted our la&s on the sub7ect, as recounted above, provides no basis for ?s to construe said la& along the line of the )*44 modification of the -merican #a&. !or ?s to do so &ould be to indulge in 7udicial legislation &hich it is not institutionall( permissible for this Court to do. 6orse, this court &ould be going precisel( against the grain of the implicit #egislative intent. There is at least one decision of this Court before Burca &herein it seems it is 0uite clearl( implied that this Court is of the vie& that under %ection )5 of the $aturali"ation #a&, the &ido& and children of an applicant for naturali"ation &ho dies during the proceedings do not have to submit themselves to another naturali"ation proceeding in order to avail of the benefits of the proceedings involving the husband. %ection )5 provides1 . %EC. )5. %ight of widow and children of petitioners who have died. H 9n case a petitioner should die before

the final decision has been rendered, his &ido& and minor children ma( continue the proceedings. The decision rendered in the case shall, so far as the &ido& and minor children are concerned, produce the same legal effect as if it had been rendered during the life of the petitioner. 9n Tan Lin v. %epu*lic , F.R. $o. #C):,B5, 'a( :), )*5), 4 %CR- :+:, this Court held1 9nvoking the above provisions in their favor, petitionersC appellants argue ()) that under said %ec. )5, the &ido& and minor children are allo&ed to continue the same proceedings and are not substituted for the original petitioner3 (4) that the 0ualifications of the original petitioner remain to be in issue and not those of the &ido& and minor children, and (:) that said %ection )5 applies &hether the petitioner dies before or after final decision is rendered, but before the 7udgment becomes e.ecutor(. There is force in the first and second arguments. Even the second sentence of said %ection )5 contemplate the fact that the 0ualifications of the original petitioner remains the sub7ect of in0uir(, for the simple reason that it states that =The decision rendered in the case shall, so far as the &ido& and minor children are concerned, produce the same legal effect as if it had been rendered during the life of the petitioner.= This phraseolog( emphasi"es the intent of the la& to continue the proceedings &ith the deceased as the theoretical petitioner, for if it &ere

other&ise, it &ould have been unnecessar( to consider the decision rendered, as far as it affected the &ido& and the minor children. ... ... ... The Chua Chian case ( supra), cited b( the appellee, declared that a dead person can not be bound to do things stipulated in the oath of allegiance, because an oath is a personal matter. Therein, the &ido& pra(ed that she be allo&ed to take the oath of allegiance for the deceased. 9n the case at bar, petitioner Tan #in merel( asked that she be allo&ed to take the oath of allegiance and the proper certificate of naturali"ation, once the naturali"ation proceedings of her deceased husband, shall have been completed, not on behalf of the deceased but on her o&n behalf and of her children, as recipients of the benefits of his naturali"ation. 9n other &ords, the herein petitioner proposed to take the oath of allegiance, as a citi"en of the 2hilippines, b( virtue of the legal provision that =an( &oman &ho is no& or ma( hereafter be married to a citi"en of the 2hilippines and &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 'inor children of persons naturali"ed under this la& &ho have been born in the 2hilippines shall be considered citi"ens thereof.= (%ection )>, Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:). The decision granting citi"enship to #ee 2a and the record of the case at bar, do not sho& that the petitioning &ido& could not have been la&full( naturali"ed,

at the time #ee 2a filed his petition, apart from the fact that his * minor children &ere all born in the 2hilippines. (Gecision, 9n the 'atter of the 2etition of #ee 2a to be admitted a citi"en of the 2hilippines, Civil Case $o. )54+,, C!9, 'anila, -nne. -3 Record on -ppeal, pp. +C))). The reference to Chua Chian case is, therefore, premature. %ection )5, as ma( be seen, is a parallel provision to %ection )>. 9f the &ido& of an applicant for naturali"ation as !ilipino, &ho dies during the proceedings, is not re0uired to go through a naturali"ation preceeding, in order to be considered as a !ilipino citi"en hereof, it should follo& that the &ife of a living !ilipino cannot be denied the same privilege. This is plain common sense and there is absolutel( no evidence that the #egislature intended to treat them differentl(. -dditionall(, 6e have carefull( considered the arguments advanced in the motion for reconsideration in /urca, and 6e see no reason to disagree &ith the follo&ing vie&s of counsel1 . 9t is obvious that the provision itself is a legislative declaration of &ho ma( be considered citi"ens of the 2hilippines. 9t is a proposition too plain to be disputed that Congress has the po&er not onl( to prescribe the mode or manner under &hich foreigners ma( ac0uire citi"enship, but also the ver( po&er of conferring citi)enship *. legislative fiat. (?. %. v. 6ong Nim -rk, )5* ?. %. 5A*, A4 #. Ed. +*B ;)+*+< 3 see ) TaKada and Carreon, 2olitical #a& of the 2hilippines )>4 ;)*5) ed.<) The Constitution itself recogni"es as 2hilippine citi"ens =Those &ho are naturali"ed in accordance &ith la&= (%ection );><, -rticle 98,

2hilippine Constitution). Citi"ens b( naturali"ation, under this provision, include not onl( those &ho are naturali"ed in accordance &ith legal proceedings for the ac0uisition of citi"enship, but also those &ho ac0uire citi"enship b( =derivative naturali"ation= or *. operation of law, as, for e.ample, the =naturali"ation= of an alien &ife through the naturali"ation of her husband, or b( marriage of an alien &oman to a citi"en. (%ee TaKada Q Carreon, op. cit. supra, at )>4, ),43 8ela(o, 2hilippine Citi"enship and $aturali"ation 4 ;)*5> ed.<3 ) 2aras, Civil Code )+5 ;)*5, ed.<3 see also : Hack&orth, Gigest of 9nternational #a& :). The phrase =shall be deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines= found in %ection )A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a& clearl( manifests an intent to confer citi"enship. Construing a similar phrase found in the old ?.%. naturali"ation la& (Revised %tatutes, )**A), -merican courts have uniforml( taken it to mean that upon her marriage, the alien &oman becomes b( operation of la& a citi"en of the ?nited %tates as full( as if she had complied &ith all the provisions of the statutes upon the sub7ect of naturali"ation. (?.%. v. Neller, ): !. +43 ?.%. pinions of the ?% -ttorne( Feneral dated June A, )+,A ;)A p. AB4), Jul( 4B, )*B* ;4, p. >B,<, Gecember ), )*)B ;4+ p. >B+<, Jan. )>, )*4B ;:4 p. 4B*) and Jan. )4, )*4: ;4: :*+<). The phrase =shall be deemed a

citi"en,= in %ection )**A Revised %tatute (?.%. Comp. %tat. )B*), )45+) or as it &as in the -ct of )+>> ()B %tat. at #. 5BA, Chapt. ,), %ec. 4), =shall be deemed and taken to be a citi"ens= &hile it ma( impl( that the person to &hom it relates has not actuall( become a citi"en b( the ordinar( means or in the usual &a(, as b( the 7udgment of a competent court, upon a proper application and proof, (et it does not follo& that such person is on that account practicall( an( the less a citi"en. The word <dee6ed< is the e(uivalent of <considered< or <'udged,< and therefore, whatever an Act of Congress re(uires to *e <dee6ed< or <ta:en< as true of an. person or thing 6ust,

in law, *e considered as having *een dul. ad'udged or esta*lished concerning such person or thing, and have force and effect accordingl.. Fhen, therefore, Congress declares that an alien wo6an shall, under certain circu6stances, *e <dee6ed< an A6erican citi)en, the effect when the contingenc. occurs, is e(uivalent to her *eing naturali)ed directl. *. an Act of Congress or in the usual 6ode there*. prescri*ed. (8an G(ne, Citi"enship of the ?nited %tates 4:*, cited in 8ela(o, 2hilippine Citi"enship and $aturali"ation )A5C)A, ;)*5> ed.<3 emphasis ours). That this &as like&ise the intent of the 2hilippine legislature &hen it enacted the first paragraph of %ection )> of the Revised $aturali"ation #a& is sho&n b( a te.tual

anal(sis of the entire statutor( provision. 9n its entiret(, %ection )> reads1 (%ee supra). The phrases =shall be deemed= =shall be considered,= and =shall automaticall( become= as used in the above provision, are undoubtedl( s(non(mous. The leading idea or purpose of the provision &as to confer 2hilippine citi"enship b( operation of la& upon certain classes of aliens as a legal conse(uence of their relationship, b( blood or b( affinit(, to persons &ho are alread( citi"ens of the 2hilippines. 6henever the fact of relationship of the persons enumerated in the provision concurs &ith the fact of citi)enship of the person to &hom the( are related, the effect is for said persons to become ipso facto citi"ens of the 2hilippines. =!pso facto= as here used does not mean that all alien &ives and all minor children of 2hilippine citi"ens, from the mere fact of relationship, necessaril( become such citi"ens also. Those &ho do not meet the statutor( re0uirements do not ipso facto become citi"ens3 the( must appl( for naturali"ation in order to ac0uire such status. 6hat it does mean, ho&ever, is that in respect of those persons enu6erated in "ection /2, the relationship to a citi"en of the 2hilippines is the operative fact &hich establishes the ac0uisition of 2hilippine citi"enship b( them. $ecessaril(, it also determines the point of ti6e at &hich such citi"enship commences. Thus,

under the second paragraph of %ection )>, a minor child of a !ilipino naturali"ed under the la&, who was *orn in the -hilippines, becomes ipso facto a citi"en of the 2hilippines from the time the fact of relationship concurs &ith the fact of citi"enship of his parent, and the time &hen the child became a citi"en does not depend upon the ti6e that he is a*le to prove that he was *orn in the -hilippines. The child ma( prove some 4> (ears after the naturali"ation of his father that he &as born in the 2hilippines and should, therefore, be =considered= a citi"en thereof. 9t does not mean that he became a 2hilippine citi"en onl( at that later time. %imilarl(, an alien &oman &ho married a 2hilippine citi"en ma( be able to prove onl( some 4> (ears after her marriage (perhaps, because it &as onl( 4> (ears after the marriage that her citi"enship status became in 0uestion), that she is one &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed.= 9t is not reasonable to conclude that she ac0uired 2hilippine citi"enship onl( after she had proven that she =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed.= 9t is not reasonable to conclude that she ac0uired 2hilippine citi"enship onl( after she had proven that she =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed.= The point that bears emphasis in this regard is that in adopting the ver( phraseolog( of the la&, the legislature could not have intended that an alien &ife should not *e dee6ed a 2hilippine citi"en unless and until she proves

that she might herself be la&full( naturali"ed. !ar from it, the la& states in plain terms that she shall *e dee6ed a citi"en of the 2hilippines if she is one =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed.= The proviso that she must be one =&ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= is not a condition precedent to the vesting or ac(uisition of citi)enship3 it is onl( a condition or a state of fact necessar( to establish her citi"enship as a factu6 pro*andu6, i.e., as a fact established and proved in evidence. The &ord =might,= as used in that phrase, precisel( replies that at the time of her marriage to a 2hilippine citi"en, the alien &oman =had (the) po&er= to become such a citi"en herself under the la&s then in force. ( &en v. Nell(, 5 GC )*) ;)+5,<, affEd Nell( v. &en, ,5 ?% A*5, )* # ed 4+: ;)+5*). That she establishes such po&er long after her marriage does not alter the fact that at her marriage, she became a citi"en. (This Court has held) that =an alien &ife of a !ilipino citi"en ma( not ac(uire the status of a citi"en of the 2hilippines unless there is proof that she herself ma( be la&full( naturali"ed= (Gecision, pp. :C A). ?nder this vie&, the =ac0uisition= of citi"enship b( the alien &ife depends on her having proven her 0ualifications for citi"enship, that is, she is not a citi"en unless and until she proves that she ma( herself be la&full( naturali"ed. 9t is clear from the &ords of the la& that the proviso does not mean that she must first prove that

she =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed= before she shall be deemed (b( Congress, not b( the courts) a citi"en. Even the =uniform= decisions cited b( this Court (at fn. 4) to support its holding did not rule that the alien &ife becomes a citi"en onl( after she has proven her 0ualifications for citi"enship. 6hat those decisions ruled &as that the alien &ives in those cases failed to prove their 0ualifications and therefore the. failed to esta*lish their clai6 to citi)enship. Thus in L. 8io: Ha v. 8alang, )B) 2hil. A>* ;l*>,<, the case &as remanded to the lo&er court for determination of &hether petitioner, &hose claim to citi"enship b( marriage to a !ilipino &as disputed b( the Fovernment, =might herself be la&full( naturali"ed,= for the purpose of = proving her alleged change of political status fro6 alien to citi)en = (at A5A). 9n Cua v. Board, )B) 2hil. >4) ;)*>,<, the alien &ife &ho &as being deported, claimed she &as a 2hilippine citi"en b( marriage to a !ilipino. This Court finding that there &as no proof that she &as not dis0ualified under %ection A of the Revised $aturali"ation #a&, ruled that1 =$o such evidence appearing on record, the clai6 of assu6ption of -hilippine citi)enship b( Ti7oe 6u %uan, upon her marriage to petitioner, is untenable.= (at >4:) 9t &ill be observed that in these decisions cited b( this Court, the lack of proof that the alien &ives =might (themselves) be la&full( naturali"ed= did not necessaril( impl( that the( did not become, in truth and in

fact, citi"ens upon their marriage to !ilipinos. 6hat the decisions merel( held &as that these &ives failed to establish their claim to that status as a proven fact. 9n all instances &here citi"enship is conferred b( operation of la&, the time &hen citi"enship is conferred should not be confused &ith the time &hen citi"enship status is established as a proven fact. Thus, even a naturalCborn citi"en of the 2hilippines, &hose citi"enship status is put in issue in an( proceeding &ould be re0uired to prove, for instance, that his father is a citi"en of the 2hilippines in order to factuall( establish his claim to citi"enship.B His citi"enship status commences from the time of birth, although his claim thereto is established as a fact onl( at a subse0uent time. #ike&ise, an alien &oman &ho might herself be la&full( naturali"ed becomes a 2hilippine citi"en at the time of her marriage to a !ilipino husband, not at the time she is able to establish that status as a proven fact b( sho&ing that she might herself be la&full( naturali"ed. 9ndeed, there is no difference bet&een a statutor( declaration that a person is deemed a citi"en of the 2hilippines provided his father is such citi)en from a declaration that an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en of the 2hilippines provided she 6ight herself *e lawfull. naturali)ed . /oth become citi"ens b( operation of la&3 the former becomes a citi"en ipso facto upon birth3 the later ipso facto upon marriage.

9t is true that unless and until the alien &ife proves that she might herself be la&full( naturali"ed, it cannot be said that she has established her status as a proven fact. /ut neither can it be said that on that account, she did not become a citi"en of the 2hilippines. 9f her citi"enship status is not 0uestioned in an( legal proceeding, she obviousl( has no obligation to establish her status as a fact. 9n such a case, the presumption of la& should be that she is &hat she claims to be. (?.%. v. Ro.as, > 2hil. :,> ;)*B><3 Hilado v. -ssad, >) .F. A>4, ;)*>><). There is a presumption that a representation sho&n to have been made is true. (-etna 9ndemnit( Co. v. Feorge -. !uller, Co., ,: -. ,:+, ,A -. :5*, ))) 'E. :4)). The 0uestion that keeps bouncing back as a conse0uence of the foregoing vie&s is, &hat substitute is them for naturali"ation proceedings to enable the alien &ife of a 2hilippine citi"en to have the matter of her o&n citi"enship settled and established so that she ma( not have to be called upon to prove it ever(time she has to perform an act or enter in to a transaction or business or e.ercise a right reserved onl( to !ilipinosD The read( ans&er to such 0uestion is that as the la&s of our countr(, both substantive and procedural, stand toda(, there is no such procedure, but such paucit( is no proof that the citi"enship under discussion is not vested as of the date of marriage or the husbandEs ac0uisition of citi"enship, as the case ma( be, for the truth is that the same situation ob7ections even as to nativeCborn !ilipinos. Ever(time the citi"enship of a person is material or indispensable in a 7udicial or administrative case, &hatever the corresponding court or administrative authorit( decides therein as to such citi"enship is generall( not considered as res ad'udicata, hence it has to be threshed out

again and again as the occasion ma( demand. This, as 6e vie& it, is the sense in &hich Justice Gi"on referred to =appropriate proceeding= in Brito v. Co66issioner, supra. 9ndeed, onl( the good sense and 7udgment of those subse0uentl( in0uiring into the matter ma( make the effort easier or simpler for the persons concerned b( rel(ing someho& on the antecedent official findings, even if these are not reall( binding. 9t ma( not be amiss to suggest, ho&ever, that in order to have a good starting point and so that the most immediate relevant public records ma( be kept in order, the follo&ing observations in pinion $o. :+, series of )*>+, of then -cting %ecretar( of Justice Jesus F. /arrera, ma( be considered as the most appropriate initial step b( the interested parties1 Regarding the steps that should be taken b( an alien &oman married to a !ilipino citi"en in order to ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship, the procedure follo&ed in the /ureau of 9mmigration is as follo&s1 The alien &oman must file a petition for the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration alleging, among other things, that she is married to a !ilipino, citi"en and that she is not dis0ualified from ac0uiring her husbandEs citi"enship pursuant to section A of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,:, as amended. ?pon the filing of said petition, &hich should be accompanied or supported b( the 7oint affidavit of the petitioner and her !ilipino husband to the effect that the petitioner does not belong to an( of the groups dis0ualified b( the cited section from becoming naturali"ed !ilipino citi"en (please see attached CE/ !orm )), the /ureau of 9mmigration conducts an investigation and thereafter

promulgates its order or decision granting or den(ing the petition. nce the Commissioner of 9mmigration cancels the sub7ectEs registration as an alien, there &ill probabl( be less difficult( in establishing her !ilipino citi"enship in an( other proceeding, depending naturall( on the substance and vigor of the opposition. /efore closing, it is perhaps best to clarif( that this third issue 6e have passed upon &as not touched b( the trial court, but as the point is decisive in this case, the Court prefers that the matter be settled once and for all no&. 9$ 89E6 ! -## THE ! REF 9$F, the 7udgment of the Court a (uo dismissing appellantsE petition for in7unction is hereb( reversed and the Commissioner of 9mmigration andLor his authori"ed representative is permanentl( en7oined from causing the arrest and deportation and the confiscation of the bond of appellant #au @uen @eung, &ho is hereb( declared to have become a !ilipino citi"en from and b( virtue of her marriage to her coCappellant 'o( @a #im @ao alias Edilberto -guinaldo #im, a !ilipino citi"en on Januar( 4>, )*54. $o costs. &i)on, Castro, Teehan:ee and Dilla6or, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 993)& J(.u(+y 30, 199) "JU'ANTAN, petitioner, vs. HON. AN"REA ". "O'INGO, CO''ISSIONER OF THE BOAR" OF I''IGRATION, HON. REGINO R. SANTIAGO (.6 HON. JORGE !. SAR'IENTO, CO''ISSIONERS BUREAU OF I''IGRATION AN" "E ORTATION, respondents.

$UIASON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 5> of the Revised Rules of Court &ith preliminar( in7unction, to reverse and set aside the Gecision dated %eptember 4,, )**B of the Commission on 9mmigration and Geportation (C9G), ordering the deportation of petitioner and its Resolution dated Januar( 4*, )**), den(ing the motion for reconsideration. 9 /ernard /ane", the husband of 'arina Cabael, &ent to 9ndonesia as a contract &orker. n -pril :, )*,A, he embraced and &as converted to 9slam. n 'a( ),, )*,A, he married petitioner in accordance &ith 9slamic rites. He returned to the 2hilippines in Januar( )*,*. n Januar( ):, )*,*, petitioner and her t&o children &ith /ane", (t&oC(ear old 'arina and nineCmonth old $ikulas) arrived in 'anila as the =guests= of /ane". The latter made it appear that he &as 7ust a friend of the famil( of petitioner and &as merel( repa(ing the hospitabilit( e.tended to him during his sta( in 9ndonesia. 6hen petitioner and her t&o children arrived at the $ino( -0uino 9nternational -irport on Januar( ):, )*,*, /ane", together &ith 'arina Cabael, met them. /ane" e.ecuted an =-ffidavit of Fuarant( and %upport,= for his =guests,= stating inter alia, that1 That 9 am the guarantor for the entr( into the 2hilippines of 'rs. G7umantan, A4 (ears old, and her t&o minor children, '-R9$-, 4 (ears old, and $9N?#-%, * months old, all 9ndonesian citi"ens, &ho are coming as temporar( visitors. That 9 am &illing to guarant( them out of gratitude to their famil( for the hospitalit( the( have accorded me during the

fe& (ears that 9 have sta(ed in 9ndonesia in connection &ith m( emplo(ment thereat. That 9 guarant( the( are la& abiding citi"ens and 9 guarant( their behavior &hile the( are in the 2hilippines3 9 also guarant( their support and that the( &ill not become a public charge. That 9 guarant( their voluntar( departure upon the termination of the authori"ed sta( granted them b( the Fovernment (%ollo, p. A)). -s =guests,= petitioner and her t&o children lived in the house of /ane". 2etitioner and her children &ere admitted to the 2hilippines as temporar( visitors under %ection *(a) of the 9mmigration -ct of )*AB. 9n )*+), 'arina Cabael discovered the true relationship of her husband and petitioner. %he filed a complaint for =concubinage= &ith the 'unicipal Trial Court of ?rdaneta, 2angasinan against the t&o. This case &as, ho&ever, dismissed for lack of merit. n 'arch 4>, )*+4, the immigration status of petitioner &as changed from temporar( visitor to that of permanent resident under %ection ):(a) of the same la&. n -pril )A, )*+4, petitioner &as issued an alien certificate of registration. $ot accepting the setCback, /ane"E eldest son, #eonardo, filed a letter complaint &ith the mbudsman, &ho subse0uentl( referred the letter to the C9G. n the basis of the said letter, petitioner &as detained at the C9G detention cell. %he later released pending the deportation proceedings (GE2 Case $o. *BC ABB) after posting a cash bond (%ollo, pp. )>C )5). Thereafter, she manifested to the C9G that she be allo&ed to depart voluntaril( from the 2hilippines and asked for time to purchase her airline ticket (%ollo, p. )B). Ho&ever, she a change of heart and moved for the dismissal of the deportation case on the ground that she

&as validl( married to a !ilipino citi"en ( %ollo, pp. ))C)4). 9n the Gecision dated %eptember 4,, )**B, the C9G, through public respondents, disposed as follo&s1 6HERE! RE, 9$ 89E6 ! THE ! REF 9$F, the /oard of Commissioners finds the second marriage of /ernardo /anes to respondent G7umantan irregular and not in accordance &ith the la&s of the 2hilippines. 6e revoke the %ection ):(a) visa previousl( granted to her (%ollo, p. 4:). 2ublic respondents denied petitionerEs motion for reconsideration in their Resolution dated Januar( 4*, )**) (%ollo, pp. :)C::). Hence, this petition. 6e issued a temporar( restraining order, directing public respondents to cease and desist from e.ecuting or implementing the Gecision dated %eptember 4,, )**B and the Resolution dated Januar( 4*, )**) ( %ollo, pp. :AC:5). n %eptember 4B, )**A, #eonardo C. /ane" manifested that his father died on -ugust )A, )**A and that he and his mother &ere &ithdra&ing their ob7ection to the granting of a permanent resident visa to petitioner ( %ollo, pp. ),:C),>). 99 2etitioner claims that her marriage to /ane" &as valid under -rticle 4, of 2.G. $o. )B+>, the 'uslim Code, &hich recogni"es the practice of pol(andr( b( 'uslim males. !rom that premise, she argues that under -rticles )B* of the Civil Code of the 2hilippines, -rticle 5+ of the !amil( Code and -rticle :A of the 'uslim Code, the husband and &ife are obliged to live together and under -rticle ))B of the Civil Code of the 2hilippines, the husband is given the right to fi. the con7ugal residence. %he claims that public respondents

have no right to order the couple to live separatel( (%ollo, pp. >C,). 6hen asked to comment on the petition, the %olicitor Feneral took the position that the C9G could not order petitionerEs deportation because its po&er to do so had prescribed under %ection :, (b) of the 9mmigration -ct of )*AB (%ollo, pp. >,C,A). 999 6e need not resolve the validit( of petitionerEs marriage to /ane", if under the la& the C9G can validl( deport petitioner as an =undesirable alien= regardless of her marriage to a !ilipino citi"en. Therefore, to be first resolved is the 0uestion on petitionerEs immigration status, particularl( the legalit( of her admission into the countr( and the change of her status from temporar( visitor to permanent resident. ?pon a finding that she &as not la&full( admitted into the countr( and she did not la&full( ac0uire permanent residenc(, the ne.t 0uestion is &hether the po&er to deport her has prescribed. There &as a blatant abuse of our immigration la&s in effecting petitionerEs entr( into the countr( and the change of her immigration status from temporar( visitor to permanent resident. -ll such privileges &ere obtained through misinterpretation. $ever &as the marriage of petitioner to /ane" disclosed to the immigration authorities in her applications for temporar( visitorEs visa and for permanent residenc(. The civil status of an alien applicant for admission as a temporar( visitor is a matter that could influence the e.ercise of discretion on the part of the immigration authorities. The immigration authorities &ould be less inclined to allo& the entr( of a &oman &ho claims to have entered into a marriage &ith a !ilipino citi"en, &ho is married to another &oman ( Cf. %hiu %hin 'an v. Falang, : %CR- +,) ;)*5)<). Fenerall(, the right of the 2resident to e.pel or deport aliens &hose presence is deemed

inimical to the public interest is as absolute and un0ualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entr( into the countr( (-nnotations, + -#R )4+5). this right is based on the fact that since the aliens are not part of the nation, their admission into the territor( is a matter of pure permission and simple tolerance &hich creates no obligation on the part of the government to permit them to sta( (: -m. Jur. 4d. ,4). The interest, &hich an alien has in being admitted into or allo&ed to continue to reside in the countr(, is protected onl( so far as Congress ma( choose to protect it (?nited %tates e. rel. Naloudis v. %hauhness( )+B !. 4d. A+*). There is no la& guaranteeing aliens married to !ilipino citi"ens the right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent residenc(, in the 2hilippines. The fact of marriage b( an alien to a citi"en does not &ithdra& her from the operation of the immigration la&s governing the admission and e.clusion of aliens (?nited %tates e. rel. Nnauff v. %hauhness(, ::+ ?% >:, *A #. Ed. :),, ,B %. Ct. :B* ;)*>B<3 #o& 6ah %ue( v. /ackus, 44> ?% A5B >5 #. Ed. ))5>, :4 %. Ct. ,:A ;)*)4<3 -nnotations, ,) -#R )4):). 'arriage of an alien &oman to a !ilipino husband does not ipso facto make her a !ilipino citi"en and does not e.cuse her from her failure to depart from the countr( upon the e.piration of her e.tended sta( here as an alien (Joa0uin v. Falang, :: %CR- :54 ;)*,B<). ?nder %ection * of the 9mmigration -ct of )*AB, it is not mandator( for the C9G to admit an( alien &ho applies for a visitorEs visa. nce admitted into the countr(, the alien has no right to an indefinite sta(. ?nder %ection ): of the la&, an alien allo&ed to sta( temporaril( ma( appl( for a change of status and =ma( be admitted= as a permanent resident. -mong those considered 0ualified to appl( for permanent residenc( if the &ife or husband of a 2hilippine citi"en (9mmigration -ct of )*AB, %ec. ):;a<). The entr( of aliens into the countr( and their admission as immigrants is

not a matter of right, even if the( are legall( married to !ilipino citi"ens. 98 6e no& address the issue raised b( the %olicitor Feneral that the right of public respondents to deport petitioner has prescribed, citing %ection :,(b) of the 9mmigration -ct of )*AB. %aid %ection :,(b) provides1 Geportation ma( be effected under clauses 4, ,, +, )) and )4 of paragraph (a) of this section at an( time after entr(, but shall not be effected under an( clause unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made &ithin five (ears after the cause for deportation arises. Geportation under clauses : and A shall not be effected if the court, or 7udge thereof, &hen sentencing the alien, shall recommend to the Commissioner of 9mmigration that the alien be not deported (-s amended b( Rep. -ct $o. >B:). %ection :,(a) of the said la& mentioned in %ection :,(b) thereof provides1 The follo&ing aliens shall be arrested upon the &arrant of the Commissioner of 9mmigration or of an( other officer designated b( him for the purpose and deported upon the &arrant of the Commissioner of 9mmigration after a determination b( the /oard of Commissioners of the e.istence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien1 )) -n( alien &ho enters the 2hilippines after the effective date of this -ct b( means of

false and misleading statements or &ithout inspection and admission b( the immigration authorities at a designating port of entr( or at an( place other than at a designated port of entr(. 4) -n( alien &ho enters the 2hilippines after the effective date of this -ct, &ho &as not la&full( admissible at the time of entr(3 :) -n( alien &ho, after the effective date of this -ct, is convicted in the 2hilippines and sentenced for a term of one (ear or more for a crime involving moral turpitude committed &ithin five (ears after his entr(, is so convicted and sentenced more than once3 A) -n( alien &ho is convicted and sentenced for a violation of the la& governing prohibited drugs3 >) -n( alien &ho practices prostitution or is an inmate of a house of prostitution or is connected &ith the management of a house of prostitution, or is a procurer3 5) -n( alien &ho becomes a public charge &ithin five (ears after entr( from causes not affirmativel( sho&n to have arisen subse0uent to entr(3 ,) -n( alien &ho remains in the 2hilippines in violation of an( limitation or condition under &hich he &as admitted a nonCimmigrant3 +) -n( alien &ho believes in, advises, advocates or teaches the overthro& b( force and

violence of the Fovernment of the 2hilippines, or of constituted la& and authorit(, or &ho disbelieves in or is opposed to organi"ed government, or &ho advises, advocates, or teaches the assault or assassination of public officials because of their office, or &ho advises, advocates, or teaches the unla&ful destruction of propert(, or &ho is a member of or affiliated &ith an( organi"ation entertaining, advocating or teaching such doctrines, or &ho on an( manner &hatsoever lends assistance, financial or other&ise, to the dissemination of such doctrines3 *) -n( alien &ho commits an( of the acts described in %ections fort(Cfive and fort(Csi. of this -ct, independent of criminal action &hich ma( be brought against him1 -rovided, That in the case of an alien &ho, for an( reason, is convicted and sentenced to suffer both imprisonment and deportation, said alien shall first serve the entire period of his imprisonment before he is actuall( deported1 -rovided, however, That the imprisonment ma( be &aived b( the Commissioner of 9mmigration &ith the consent of the Gepartment Head, and upon pa(ment b( the alien concerned of such amount as the Commissioner ma( fi. and approved b( the Gepartment Head, and upon pa(ment b( the alien concerned of such amount as the Commissioner ma( fi. and approved b( the Gepartment Head (as amended b( R.-. $o. )AA)3

)B) -n( alien &ho, at an( time &ithin five (ears after entr(, shall have been convicted of violating the provisions of the 2hilippine Common&ealth -ct $umbered %i. hundred and fift(Cthree, other&ise kno&n as the 2hilippine -lien Registration -ct of )*A) (no& Republic -ct $o. >54), or &ho, at an( time after entr(, shall have been convicted more than once of violating the provisions of the same -ct3 ))) -n( alien &ho engages in profiteering, hoarding, or blackCmarketing, independent of an( criminal action &hich ma( be brought against him3 )4) -n( alien &ho is convicted of an( offense penali"ed under Common&ealth -ct $umbered !our hundred and sevent(C three, other&ise kno&n as the Revised $aturali"ation #a&s of the 2hilippines, or an( la& relating to ac0uisition of 2hilippine citi"enship3 ):) -n( alien &ho defrauds his creditor b( absconding or alienating properties, to prevent them from being attached or e.ecuted. ?nder clause ) of %ection :,(a), an =alien &ho enters the 2hilippines after the effective date of this -ct b( means of false and misleading statements or &ithout inspection and admission b( the immigration authorities at a designated port of entr( or at an( place other than at a designated port of entr(= is sub7ect to deportation. The deportation of an alien under said clause of %ection :,(a) has a prescriptive period and =shall not be effected ... unless the arrest in the deportation proceedings is made &ithin five (ears after the cause for deportation arises= (9mmigration -ct of )*AB, %ec. :,;b<).

Congress ma( impose a limitation of time for the deportation of alien from the countr( (Costan"o v. Tillinghast, 4+, ?% :A) ,, #. Ed. :>B, >: %. Ct. )>4 ;)*:4<3 Fuine( v. /onham ;C- *< 45) !. >+4, + -#R )4+4). 9n Board of Co66issioners HC!&I v. &ela %osa, )*, %CR- +>: ()**)), &e held that under %ection :,(b) of the 9mmigration -ct of )*AB, the deportation of an alien ma( be barred after the lapse of five (ears after the cause of deportation arises. Justice !eliciano, in his dissenting opinion, 0ualified the broad statement of the la& as follo&s1 E.amination of the above 0uoted %ection :, (b) sho&s that the five (>) (ear limitation is applicable onl( &here deportation is sought to be effected under clauses of %ection :, (a) other than clauses 4, ,, +, )) and )43 that &here deportation or e.clusion is sought to be effected under clauses of %ection :,(a), no period of limitation is applicable3 and that to the contrar(, deportation or e.clusion ma( be effected =at an( time after entr(.= Justice Gavide, in his dissenting opinion, clarified1 $ote that the fiveC(ear period applies onl( to clauses other than 4, ,, +, )) and )4 of paragraph (a) of the %ection. 9n respect to clauses 4, ,, +, )), and )4, the limitation does not appl(. 9n La6 "hee v. Beng)on, *: 2hil. )B5> ()*>:), the alien admitted that she had gained entrance into the 2hilippines fraudulentl( b( making use of the name of a Chinese residentCmerchant other than that of her la&ful husband. The Court, ho&ever, held that she could no longer be deported =for the simple reason that more than > (ears had elapsed from the date of her admission.=

The right of public respondents to deport petitioner has prescribed. 2etitioner &as admitted and allo&ed entr( into the 2hilippines on Januar( ):, )*,* on the basis of false and misleading statements in her application and in the other supporting documents submitted to the immigration authorities. #eonardo C. /ane" first complained &ith the C9G on $ovember )*, )*+B about the manner petitioner &as admitted into the countr( and asked for her deportation (%ollo, pp. ,,C,+). -fter the EG%Revolution, he sent a follo&Cup letter to the C9G re0uesting action on his )*+B letterC complaint (%ollo, p. ,+). Tolling the prescriptive period from $ovember )*, )*+B, &hen #eonardo C. /ane" informed the C9G of the illegal entr( of petitioner into the countr(, more than five (ears had elapsed before the issuance of the order of her deportation on %eptember 4,, )**B. 9n their Comment, public respondents urged that &hat is barred under %ection :,(b) is the deportation of an alien and claimed that &hat the( ordered &as not the deportation of petitioner but merel( the revocation of %ection ):(a) &hich refers to the visa previousl( granted her (%ollo, p. )B4). The =arrest= contemplated b( %ection :,(b) refers to the arrest for the purpose of carr(ing out an order for deportation and not the arrest prior to proceedings to determine the right of the alien to sta( in the countr(. 6hen public respondents revoked the permanent residence visa issued to petitioner, the(, in effect, ordered her arrest and deportation as an oversta(ing alien. 6HERE! RE, the petition is FR-$TEG and the temporar( restraining order issued on June A, )**) is '-GE 2ER'-$E$T. The Gecision of the /oard of Commissioners dated %eptember 4,, )**B revoking the issuance of the permanent resident visa to petitioner and the Resolution dated Januar( 4*, )**) are RE8ER%EG.

RGEREG.

G.R. No. L-2&0&2 Ju.4 2&, 19@; CO''ISSIONER OF I''IGRATION (.6 CA TAIN "ELFIN 'ACALINAO, CIS, C, petitioners, vs. JUAN GARCIA, respondent.

A$UINO, J.:p The Commissioner of 9mmigration and Captain Gelfin 'acalinao of the 2hilippine Constabular( Criminal 9nvestigation %ervice appealed from the decision of the Court of -ppeals, granting the &rit of ha*eas corpus for the release of Teban Caoile, making permanent his provisional libert( and nullif(ing the &arrant of e.clusion issued b( the Commissioner of June 4:, )*54 (Farcia vs. 8ivo, C-CF.R. $o. ::+45CR, %eptember +, )*5,). - chronological recital of the developments in this case as found in the decision, the stipulation of facts and the briefs, &ill sho& &hether the appeal is 7ustified. Teban Caoile, &ith his three brothers, arrived at the port of 'anila on June ,, )*5). He applied for admission as a 2hilippine citi"en under his documentation issued for that purpose b( the 2hilippine Consulate Feneral at Hongkong. -fter hearing, the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( rendered a decision dated June 4:, )*5), allo&ing his admission on the assumption that he &as the son of -ntonio Caoile of ?rdaneta, 2angasinan &ho &as allegedl( born on Jul( :B, )*): as the illegitimate child of 'aria Caoile and a Chinaman. -ccording to that decision, -ntonio Caoile &as brought to China b( his Chinese father. 9n China he married a Chinese &oman named ng %iu T(. Teban Caoile, &ho &as born on $ovember A, )*:4, &as one of their five children. The /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( said1

/lood tests in Hongkong established possibilit( of relationship bet&een these applicants and their claimantC father. 9n his income ta. returns for the (ears )*>:, )*>+, )*>* and )*5B, -ntonio Caoile reported the correct names and dates of births of his five children and also mentioned the fact that his &ife, ng %iu T(, died in China. 9t ma( be &orth noting that the firstCmentioned income ta. return, the )*>: report, &as made about eight (ears before the present application for admission into the countr(. There is also on file a statutor( declaration made in Hongkong b( one Chan 6ah Hing, a schoolC mate of the Caoile children in China, &ho affirms that the latter &ere alread( kno&n in China to be the children of -ntonio Caoile &ho &as then residing in the 2hilippines. -ll the foregoing evidence, taken together &ith the straightfor&ard testimonies of the applicants and the claimantCfather, are believed sufficient upon &hich to base the conclusion that the herein applicants are reall( the children of -ntonio Caoile and, as such, the( are considered 2hilippine citi"ens under the provisions of paragraph (:), section ), -rticle 98 of the Constitution. (-nne. C of 2etitionersE /rief). n Jul( ,, )*5) the /oard of Commissioners of 9mmigration took the follo&ing action on the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir(1 Commissioner Emilio #. Falang voted for the e.clusion of Teban Caoile and his brothers, &hile Geput( Commissioners !rancisco de la Rosa and !eli. Talabis simpl( &rote the &ord =noted= and, belo& that ambiguous &ord, the

t&o affi.ed their signatures. The significance of that e0uivocal action is a controverted point in this case. n Jul( )B, )*5) the /ureau of 9mmigration issued to Teban Caoile 9dentification Certificate $o. )>5A+ &hich stated inter alia that =Teban Caoile, male, 4+ (ears old, single, &hose picture and fingerprint are affi.ed hereto, &as born in -mo( !ukien, China on $ovember A, )*:4, e. C2- plane on June ,, )*5), &as admitted as citi"en of the 2hilippines as per decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( dated June 4:, )*5), dul(, affirmed b( the ma7orit( of the members of the /oard of Commissioners, 9. C. $o. 5)C)++)CC= (sic). Thereafter, Teban Caoile registered as a voter, obtained a 2hilippine passport, paid residence and income ta.es, &orked in the -venue Electrical %uppl( Compan( (-vesco) and became a member of the %ocial %ecurit( %(stem. n Januar( 4A, )*54 the %ecretar( of Justice, acting in the public interest, pursuant to section ,* (C) of the Revised -dministrative Code, issued 'emorandum rder $o. *. 9n that order, he decreed that, in vie& of the fact that =for the past several (ears the /oard of Commissioners of 9mmigration has not 6et collectivel. to discuss and deliberate on cases coming before it=, =all decisions purporting to have been rendered b( the /oard of Commissioners on appeal from or on revie& 6otu proprio of, decisions of the /oards of %pecial 9n0uir(= &ere =set aside=. The %ecretar( directed the /oard of Commissioners to revie& =all decisions of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( admitting entr( of aliens into this countr( and give preference to all cases &here entr( has been permitted on the ground that the entrant is a citi"en of the 2hilippines=. He advised the /oard to appl( the rule that the alien has the onus pro*andi of establishing that he is not sub7ect to e.clusion and that, since =citi"enship is a status of privilege, po&er and honor of inestimable value=, an( doubt concerning its grant =should be resolved in favor of the

Fovernment and against the claimant= (-nne. E of 2etitionersE /rief, -rocha vs. 8ivo, #C 4A+AA, ctober 45, )*5,, 4) %CR- >:43 $eria vs. Commissioner of 9mmigration, #C 4A+BB, 'a( 4,, )*5+, 4: %CR- +B5). 'emorandum rder $o. * &as not touched upon in respondentEs brief and in the decision of the Court of -ppeals. That order has a crucial bearing in this case. E.actl( one (ear from the date &hen the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( rendered its decision, or on June 4:, )*54, a ne& /oard of Commissioners of 9mmigration (composed of 'artiniano 2. 8ivo, 'arcial . Ranola and 8irgilio Faston), acting under the authorit( of 'emorandum rder $o. *, reversed 6otu propio the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( and ordered the e.clusion of Teban Caoile and his three brothers. The ground for the e.clusion &as that the( &ere not properl( documented for admission (%ec. 4*;a< ;),< Com. -ct $o. 5):). The 6otu proprio revie& is sanctioned b( section 4,(b) of the 9mmigration #a& &hich provides that the /oard of Commissioners ma( reverse a decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( 6otu proprio =&ithin one (ear from the promulgation of said decision=. The three Commissioners, in directl( refuting the conclusions of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir(, said1 Records of investigation sho& that although the claim to 2hilippine citi"enship of -ntonio Caoile, alleged father of applicants, is &ellCfounded (his birth and baptismal certificates sho& that he is the illegitimate child of 'aria Caoile, !ilipino), there is nothing in the same records to indicate strongl( and definitel( that sub7ects are the real children of the former. The /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( relied so much on the blood tests of applicants and their alleged father3 the income ta.

returns of the supposed father for the (ears )*>:, )*>+, )*>* and )*5B3 the statutor( declaration of one Chan 6ah Hing3 and their o&n oral testimon(. 9n cases of similar nature, it has been held that blood tests are not conclusive proof of relationship unless the( are negative and derogator(3 income ta. returns are selfC serving and unreliable3 statutor( declarations are in most cases biased and the declarant is not available to be tested for credibilit(3 and oral testimonies of applicants are similarl( biased and selfC serving. (-nne. G of 2etitionersE /rief) The Commissioners concluded that Teban Caoile and his three brothers had not satisfactoril( established their 2hilippine citi"enship. Their return to the port &hence the( came or to the countr( of &hich the( are nationals &as ordered. n that same date, June 4:rd, the Commissioner of 9mmigration issued a &arrant of e.clusion to implement the decision. 2ursuant to that &arrant, Teban Caoile &as arrested on 'arch )B, )*5A b( Captain 'acalinao and detained at the ffice of the Constabular(Es Criminal 9nvestigation %ervice at Camp Crame. n 'arch )4, )*5A Juan Farcia, a relative of Teban Caoile, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the Court of !irst 9nstance of Ri"al, Iue"on Cit( /ranch, on the ground that Caoile, as a !ilipino citi"en, &as illegall( detained. The trial court issued an order re0uiring the production in Court of Teban Caoile. n 'arch )A, )*5A the Commissioner of 9mmigration, in his return, e.plained that Caoile &as detained b( virtue of the &arrant of e.clusion implementing the decision of the /oard of Commissioners.

The case &as submitted for decision on the basis of a stipulation of facts and on the testimonies of -ntonio Caoile and 9mmigration Commissioner 8ivo. 8ivo testified that the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( &as reversed b( the /oard of Commissioners because Teban Caoile had not satisfactoril( established his claim of 2hilippine citi"enship. 8ivo admitted that, because CaoileEs &hereabouts &ere unkno&n, he &as not heard before the decision &as reversed. 8ivo ventured the opinion that Caoile =does not have the appearance of a mesti"o ChineseC!ilipino but he looks like a pureCblooded Chinese=, an observation concurred in b( the trial court. The unusual incident, &hich occurred at the hearing in the lo&er court, ma( shed light on the authenticit( of Teban CaoileEs claim of 2hilippine citi"enship. Judge $icasio @atco recounts the incident in this manner1 ... (-)fter Commissioner 8ivo had finished &ith his testimon(, he asked for time to present one &itness. 6hen he came back to the courtroom, he had &ith him the &itness -ntonio Caoile. To the testimon( of this &itness -tt(. @useco (counsel of Juan Farcia) ob7ected vigorousl( on the ground that the 0uestions sought to be propounded are immaterial. %olicitor -ba(a e.plained to the Court that the purpose of presenting this &itness is onl( to aid the Court in the proper determination of the issues raised. /ecause the Court permitted the &itness to ans&er, -tt(. @useco &ithdre& his appearance, and so the trial proceeded &ithout his presence. -n(&a(, it &as the later stage of the trial alread( &hen he &ithdre& his

appearance. (-nne. -, p. >:, 2etitioners /rief) -ntonio Caoile, the supposed father of Teban Caoile, declared that he is a !ilipino citi"en. He categoricall( affirmed <that he does not :now Te*an Caoile<, that <it was onl. in the hearing of the case that he saw Te*an Caoile< and that he HAntonioI was 6arried onl. a*out five .ears prior to /0JB. n 'arch 4A, )*5A the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for ha*eas corpus. 9t found that Teban Caoile &as legall( detained. Juan Farcia appealed to the Court of -ppeals, &here he rene&ed his motion for CaoileEs release on bail &hich had been denied b( the trial court. The Commissioner of 9mmigration opposed the motion. The Court of -ppeals allo&ed CaoileEs release upon his posting bail in the sum of 2>,BBB. The Commissioner filed in this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, &herein he assailed the resolution allo&ing the release of Caoile on bail. The petition &as dismissed (Commissioner of 9mmigration vs. !ernande", #C445*5, 'a( 4*, )*5A, )) %CR- )+A). -s alread( stated, the Court of -ppeals granted the &rit of habeas corpus and nullified the &arrant of e.clusion. 9t declared that -ntonio CaoileEs testimon( in the lo&er court =does not carr( the necessar( &eight to overthro& the established !ilipino citi"enship of Teban Caoile and his brothers, &hich has been dul( proved in a previous legal proceeding=. -ppellant Commissioner, through the %olicitor Feneral, contends that the Court of -ppeals erred ()) in basing its decision on facts not stipulated upon b( the parties or not proven in the trial court3 (4) in holding that the t&o Geput( Commissioners of 9mmigration, in noting do&n the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir(, ratified that decision3 (:) in holding that Juan Farcia denied =a reasonable opportunit( to crossCe.amine= -ntonio Caoile3 (A) in making findings on e.traneous issues and in indulging in speculations not supported

b( the evidence and (>) in assuming 7urisdiction over the appeal although onl( legal &ere involved. The 7urisdiction of the Count of -ppeals to entertain the appeal is a matter that is alread( res 'udicata. This Court ruled that, inasmuch as factual and legal 0uestions &ere involved, the Court of -ppeals had 7urisdiction over the appeal (Commissioner of 9mmigration vs. !ernande", supra). ne ground relied upon b( the Court of -ppeals in granting the petition for habeas corpus is the pronouncement of this Court in the )*5A bail incident (Commissioner of 9mmigration vs. !ernande", supra). 9t &as intimated in that case that it &as improper for the ne& /oard of Commissioners to have set aside the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( after the t&o Geput( Commissioners had =noted= that decision and, thereb(, affirmed it. 6hat this Court said in the bail incident regarding the finalit( of the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( &as an o*iter dictu6. The ratio decidendi of the decision in the bail incident, &hich &as a certiorari and prohibition case, &as that the Court of -ppeals did not =abuse, much less gravel( abuse its discretion= in granting bail to Teban Caoile. Hence, certiorari did not lie. The finalit( of the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( &as not the primar( issue in the bail incident. 9t &as the Court of -ppeals that &as called upon to rule first on that issue in the light of the evidence presented in the trial court. That issue &as not foreclosed b( the decision in the bail incident. The fact that this Court, in its decision in the bail incident, did not cite at all 'emorandum rder $o. * of the %ecretar( of Justice (&hich nullified the action taken b( the old /oard of Commissioners on the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir() sho&s that the propriet( of the notation made b( the t&o Geput( Commissioners of the old /oard &as not thoroughl( threshed out in the bail incident.

That order is pregnant &ith significance in this case. 6hen the facts are undisputed, then the 0uestion of &hether or not the conclusion dra&n therefrom b( the Court of -ppeals is correct is a 0uestion of la& &hich this Court has 7urisdiction to resolve (Cunanan vs. #a"atin, ,A 2hil. ,)*3 Joa0uin vs. $avarro, *: 2hil. 4>,, 4,B). The overriding fact in this case is that, pursuant to the directive of the %ecretar( of Justice, &ho &as acting in the public interest, and in strict conformit( &ith the 9mmigration #a&, the /oard of Commissioners reversed the decision of the /oard of 9n0uir( and ruled that Teban Caoile had not established his 2hilippine citi"enship. That decision of the /oard of Commissioners also negated the supposed approval, b( Geput( Commissioners Ge la Rosa and Talabis, of the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( on Teban CaoileEs citi"enship. -nother controlling fact is that, during the trial, the ruling of the /oard of Commissioners &as fortified, if not rendered conclusive, b( the testimon( of -ntonio Caoile that he is not the father of Teban Caoile. Those ultimate facts are undisputed. 6e hold that, under those facts, the Court of -ppeals erred in concluding that Teban Caoile has been illegall( detained and that the petition for habeas corpus should be granted. The Court of -ppeals, in assailing Judge @atcoEs decision, adverted to =the possibilit( that this -ntonio Caoile, &ho testified before the lo&er court is different from the -ntonio Caoile, &ho declared before the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( and &ho &as also intervie&ed b( 9nvestigator $acu=. The -ppellate Court ratiocinated that, assuming that he &as the genuine -ntonio Caoile, it could not understand his motive for diso&ning his paternit( of Teban Caoile. 9t be&ailed the fact that the lo&er court did not allo& FarciaEs counsel to institute a certiorari proceeding in this Court to revie& the order

allo&ing -ntonio Caoile to testif( in this case. 9t noted that Juan Farcia &as undul( denied a reasonable opportunit( to crossCe.amine -ntonio Caoile since his counsel &as provoked to &ithdra& his appearance and stage a &alkout. -s to the doubt harbored b( the Court of -ppeals on the identit( of -ntonio Caoile, appellant Commissioner of 9mmigration observed in his brief that Juan FarciaEs counsel ob7ected to the presentation of -ntonio Caoile as a &itness =not on the ground of identit(= but because he did not &ant the issue of citi"enship to be reopened. -ppellant Commissioner noted that Edgardo R. Ho7illa, the Chairman of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( that rendered the decision admitting Teban Caoile and his brothers on the ground that the( are !ilipino citi"ens, &as one of Juan FarciaEs la&(ers in the lo&er court. -ntonio Caoile testified before Ho7illa at the hearing before The /oard of %pecial 9n0uir(. Ho7illa sa& him at the hearing in the lo&er court. The %olicitor Feneral notes that if -ntonio Caoile &as not the same person &ho testified before Ho7illa, then Ho7illa &ould have called Judge @atcoEs attention to the imposture. Ho7illa did not 0uestion the identit( of -ntonio Caoile. Ho7illa preferred to 7oin J. C. @useco, FarciaEs chief counsel, in his &alkout. Those observations of appellant Commissioner in his brief &ere not refuted b( respondent Farcia in his repl( brief. The speculations of the Court of -ppeals on the identit( of -ntonio Caoile appear to be implausible. The( are anchored on suspicion. The sea of suspicion has no shores (G( Neng vs. Collector of Customs, AB 2hil. ))+). Juan Farcia had all the opportunit( during the trial to confront -ntonio Caoile and rebut his denial of the filiation of Teban Caoile. Farcia failed to do so. His counsel chose not to fight. He retreated and created the impression that he &ould not be able to controvert the testimon( of -ntonio Caoile. The Court of -ppeals also took into account a supposed report of 9nvestigator 2. R. $acu of

the Gepartment of Justice dated Januar( 4>, )*5: (not )*5>), &hich allegedl( =confirmed the findings of the /oard of Commissioners=. Respondent FarciaEs theor( is that, after the issuance of the &arrant of e.clusion but before Teban CaoileEs arrest, the ffice of the %ecretar( of Justice, through its 9nvestigation ?nit, allegedl( ordered an in0uir( into the citi"enship of Teban Caoile and his brothers. - report dated Januar( 4>, )*5: &as allegedl( submitted b( -gent $acu. That report &as branded b( the %olicitor Feneral as a forger(. Ho&ever, since the Court of -ppeals relied on that report in its decision, the contents thereof ma( 7ust as &ell be set forth herein, sub7ect to the evaluation of their veracit( and authenticit(. -ccording to the report, as 0uoted in the decision under appeal, -gent $acu on Januar( 4A, )*5: intervie&ed -ntonio Caoile, a resident of ):* 'a(on %treet, %ta. 'esa Heights, Iue"on Cit(. -ntonio Caoile allegedl( said that he &as born at ?rdaneta, 2angasinan, the son of 'aria Caoile and her commonCla& husband, a Chinaman named %o Te. -ntonio Caoile &ent to China in )*:) and married ng %iu T(. The( begot Teban, %antos and Jose all surnamed Caoile, &ho &ere born in Chinkiang, !ukien, China. -ntonio Caoile returned to the 2hilippines in /013, leaving his famil( in China. 9n )*5) -ntonio Caoile brought to the 2hilippines from Hongkong his sons, Teban, %antos and Jose. The( &ere all declared !ilipino citi"ens and &ere given the corresponding identification certificates. The investigator recommended that, as the( are the legitimate sons of -ntonio Caoile, no case be filed against them (pp. :>C:5, RespondentEs /rief3 Gecision of Court of -ppeals, pp. ,5C,+ of 2etitioners /rief). 9t should be noted that the report, &hen 7u.taposed &ith the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( $o. ), e.hibits grave discrepancies &hich impair its probative value. Thus, the report mentions three (:) alleged sons of -ntonio Caoile, as having arrived in

'anila from Hongkong in )*5), namel(, Teban, %antos and Jose. n the other hand, in the decision it is stated that four (A) sons of -ntonio Caoile sought admission in )*5). Their names are Teban, %antos, Dicente and $elipe. The fifth son, Jose, =&as dela(ed in coming over to this countr(=. The report pinpoints Chinkiang, !ukien as the birthplace of the three sons, &hereas, the decision indicates Chi /i, -mo(, as their birthplace. 9t is averred in the report that -ntonio Caoile supposedl( returned to the 2hilippines from China in /013, &hereas = in the decision, it is implied that he &as still in China in )*:+ because he cohabited &ith his Chinese &ife up to that (ear (-nne. C of 2etitionersE /rief). %o, the report, far from confirming in toto the decision, contradicts it on some vital points. Those inconsistencies destro( the probative value of the decision and the report. The( cancel each other. -fter reading them, one is at a loss as to the truth of certain details. The report did not improve Teban CaoileEs case. 9t became &orse. The unavoidable conclusion is that the report and the decision should be discarded. Their fabricated character becomes apparent because of their discrepancies. The( appear to be &orthless &hen vie&ed in relation to -ntonio CaoileEs testimon( that he is not the father of Teban Caoile. B The decisive issue is &hether the ruling of the /oard of Commissioners, as strengthened b( -ntonio CaoileEs testimon(, should prevail over the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir( &hich &as =noted= b( Geput( Commissioner Ge la Rosa and Talabis but disapproved b( Commissioner Falang. The first /oard of Commissioners did not meet collectivel( to discuss and deliberate on the decision of the /oard of %pecial 9n0uir(. 9ts action &as set aside b( 'emorandum rder $o. * of the %ecretar( of Justice. 9ndividual action b( the members of the /oard of Commissioners renders nugator( the purpose of its constitution as a board (-rocha vs. 8ivo, supra).

The later /oard of Commissioners, headed b( the appellant, acted on the h(pothesis that the documentation supporting Teban CaoileEs alleged 2hilippine citi"enship &as fraudulent and manufactured. That conclusion &as confirmed b( the testimon( of -ntonio Caoile, &ho, at risk of being indicted for per7ur(, denied an( paternal relationship to Teban Caoile. His testimon( implied that a monstrous deception &as practiced upon the immigration authorities (%ee Ge la Cru" vs. Collector of Customs, 45 2hil. 4,B3 'acala(ac vs. Collector of Customs, 5) 2hil. >B). The foundation of Teban CaoileEs assertion of 2hilippine citi"enship is his representation that he is -ntonio CaoileEs son. That foundation collapsed &hen -ntonio Caoile revealed that he could not have been the father of Teban Caoile. His revelation belied Teban CaoileEs documentation of 2hilippine citi"enship and unmasked it as an imposition. =6hen a part( resorts to falsehood or fraud in order to strengthen his evidence, it is presumed that he kno&s perfectl( &ell that his cause is groundless= (5 'oranEs Comments on the Rules of Court, )*,B Ed. A4 citing Ge #eon vs. Ju(co, ,: 2hil. >++3 ) 6igmore on Evidence >55C+3 Fon"ales vs. 'auricio, >: 2hil. ,4+). 9n vie& of the foregoing considerations, &e are of the opinion that the decision of the /oard of Commissioners, &hich &as confirmed b( the lo&er court, should be upheld. 6HERE! RE, the decision of the Court of -ppeals is set aside and the decision of the trial court is affirmed &ith costs against respondentsCappellee. %o ordered. ,aldivar HChair6anI, Antonio, and $ernande), JJ., concur. $ernando, J., concurs in the result. Barredo, J., too: no part.

not a proper part( because it &as not a voter and so could not sue under the said section. G.R. No. &@193 Ju.4 23, 19&9 JUAN GALLANOSA FRI!AL"O, petitioner, vs. CO''ISSION ON ELECTIONS AN" THE LEAGUE OF 'UNICI ALITIES, SORSOGON CHA TER, HEREIN RE RESENTE" BY ITS RESI"ENT, SAL!A"OR NEE ESTUYE, respondents. J.L. +isa & Associates for petitioner. Lladoc, Hua* respondent. & Associates for private !rivaldo moved for a preliminar( hearing on his affirmative defenses but the respondent Commission on Elections decided instead b( its rder of Januar( 4B, )*++, to set the case for hearing on the merits. His motion for reconsideration &as denied in another rder dated !ebruar( 4), )*++. He then came to this Court in a petition for certiorari and prohibition to ask that the said orders be set aside on the ground that the( had been rendered &ith grave abuse of discretion. 2ending resolution of the petition, &e issued a temporar( order against the hearing on the merits scheduled b( the C 'E#EC and at the same time re0uired comments from the respondents. 9n their Comment, the private respondents reiterated their assertion that !rivaldo &as a naturali"ed -merican citi"en and had not reac0uired 2hilippine citi"enship on the da( of the election on Januar( )+, )*++. He &as therefore not 0ualified to run for and be elected governor. The( also argued that their petition in the Commission on Elections &as not reall( for (uo warranto under %ection 4>: of the mnibus Election Code. The ultimate purpose &as to prevent !rivaldo from continuing as governor, his candidac( and election being null and void a* initio because of his alienage. Even if their petition &ere to be considered as one for (uo warranto, it could not have been filed &ithin ten da(s from !rivaldoEs proclamation because it &as onl( in %eptember )*++ that the( received proof of his naturali"ation. -nd assuming that the #eague itself &as not a proper part(, Estu(e himself, &ho &as suing not onl( for the #eague but also in his personal capacit(, could nevertheless institute the suit b( himself alone. %peaking for the public respondent, the %olicitor Feneral supported the contention that !rivaldo &as not a citi"en of the 2hilippines and had not repatriated himself after his naturali"ation as an -merican citi"en. -s an alien, he &as dis0ualified from public office in the 2hilippines. His election did not cure this defect because the electorate of

CRU%, J.: 2etitioner Juan F. !rivaldo &as proclaimed governorCelect of the province of %orsogon on Januar( 44, )*++, and assumed office in due time. n ctober 4,, )*++, the #eague of 'unicipalities, %orsogon Chapter (hereafter, #eague), represented b( its 2resident, %alvador Estu(e, &ho &as also suing in his personal capacit(, filed &ith the Commission on Elections a petition for the annulment of !rivaldo3 election and proclamation on the ground that he &as not a !ilipino citi"en, having been naturali"ed in the ?nited %tates on Januar( 4B, )*+:. 9n his ans&er dated 'a( 44, )*++, !rivaldo admitted that he &as naturali"ed in the ?nited %tates as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had sought -merican citi"enship onl( to protect himself against 2resident 'arcos. His naturali"ation, he said, &as =merel( forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution b( the 'artial #a& GictatorEs agents abroad.= He added that he had returned to the 2hilippines after the EG%revolution to help in the restoration of democrac(. He also argued that the challenge to his title should be dismissed, being in realit( a (uo warranto petition that should have been filed &ithin ten da(s from his proclamation, in accordance &ith %ection 4>: of the mnibus Election Code. The #eague, moreover, &as

%orsogon could not amend the Constitution, the #ocal Fovernment Code, and the mnibus Election Code. He also 7oined in the private respondentEs argument that %ection 4>: of the mnibus Election Code &as not applicable because &hat the #eague and Estu(e &ere seeking &as not onl( the annulment of the proclamation and election of !rivaldo. He agreed that the( &ere also asking for the termination of !rivaldoEs incumbenc( as governor of %orsogon on the ground that he &as not a !ilipino. 9n his Repl(, !rivaldo insisted that he &as a citi"en of the 2hilippines because his naturali"ation as an -merican citi"en &as not =impressed &ith voluntariness.= 9n support he cited the $ottebohm Case, ;()*>> 9.C.J. A3 A* -.J.9.#. :*5 ()*>>)< &here a Ferman nationalEs naturali"ation in #iechtenstein &as not recogni"ed because it had been obtained for reasons of convenience onl(. He said he could not have repatriated himself before the )*++ elections because the %pecial Committee on $aturali"ation created for the purpose b( # 9 $o. 4,C had not (et been organi"ed then. His oath in his certificate of candidac( that he &as a naturalCborn citi"en should be a sufficient act of repatriation. -dditionall(, his active participation in the )*+, congressional elections had divested him of -merican citi"enship under the la&s of the ?nited %tates, thus restoring his 2hilippine citi"enship. He ended b( reiterating his pra(er for the re7ection of the move to dis0ualif( him for being timeCbarred under %ection 4>: of the mnibus Election Code. Considering the importance and urgenc( of the 0uestion herein raised, the Court has decided to resolve it directl( instead of allo&ing the normal circuitous route that &ill after all eventuall( end &ith this Court, albeit onl( after a, long dela(. 6e cannot permit this dela(. %uch dela( &ill be inimical to the public interest and the vital principles of public office to be here applied. 9t is true that the Commission on Elections has the primar( 7urisdiction over this 0uestion as the sole 7udge of all contests relating to the election, returns and 0ualifications of the members of the Congress and elective

provincial and cit( officials. Ho&ever, the decision on !rivaldoEs citi"enship has alread( been made b( the C 'E#EC through its counsel, the %olicitor Feneral, &ho categoricall( claims that !rivaldo is a foreigner. 6e assume this stance &as taken b( him after consultation &ith the public respondent and &ith its approval. 9t therefore represents the decision of the C 'E#EC itself that &e ma( no& revie&. E.ercising our discretion to interpret the Rules of Court and the Constitution, &e shall consider the present petition as having been filed in accordance &ith -rticle 9MC- %ection ,, of the Constitution, to challenge the aforementioned rders of the C 'E#EC. The basic 0uestion &e must resolve is &hether or not Juan F. !rivaldo &as a citi"en of the 2hilippines at the time of his election on Januar( )+, )*++, as provincial governor of %orsogon. -ll the other issues raised in this petition are merel( secondar( to this basic 0uestion. The reason for this in0uir( is the provision in -rticle M9, %ection *, of the Constitution that all public officials and emplo(ees o&e the %tate and the Constitution =allegiance at all times= and the specific re0uirement in %ection A4 of the #ocal Fovernment Code that a candidate for local elective office must be inter alia a citi"en of the 2hilippines and a 0ualified voter of the constituenc( &here he is running. %ection )), of the mnibus Election Code provides that a 0ualified voter must be, among other 0ualifications, a citi"en of the 2hilippines, this being an indispensable re0uirement for suffrage under -rticle 8, %ection ), of the Constitution. 9n the certificate of candidac( he filed on $ovember )*, )*+,, !rivaldo described himself as a =naturalCborn= citi"en of the 2hilippines, omitting mention of an( subse0uent loss of such status. The evidence sho&s, ho&ever, that he &as naturali"ed as a citi"en of the ?nited %tates in )*+: per the follo&ing certification from the ?nited %tates Gistrict Court, $orthern Gistrict of California, as dul( authenticated b( 8ice Consul -mado 2. Corte" of the 2hilippine Consulate Feneral in %an !rancisco, California, ?.%.-.

!!9CE ! THE C#ERN ?$9TEG %T-TE% G9%TR9CT C ?RT $ RTHER$ G9%TR9CT ! C-#9! R$9%eptember 4:, )*++ T 6H ' C $CER$1 9T '-@

government through his agents in the ?nited %tates. The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner &as one of the enemies of the 'arcos dictatorship. Even so, it cannot agree that as a conse0uence thereof he &as coerced into embracing -merican citi"enship. His feeble suggestion that his naturali"ation &as not the result of his o&n free and voluntar( choice is totall( unacceptable and must be re7ected outright. There &ere man( other !ilipinos in the ?nited %tates similarl( situated as !rivaldo, and some of them sub7ect to greater risk than he, &ho did not find it necessar( H nor do the( claim to have been coerced H to abandon their cherished status as !ilipinos. The( did not take the oath of allegiance to the ?nited %tates, unlike the petitioner &ho solemnl( declared =on oath, that 9 absolutel( and entirel( renounce and ab7ure all allegiance and fidelit( to an( foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignt( of &hom or &hich 9 have heretofore been a sub7ect or citi"en,= meaning in his case the Republic of the 2hilippines. The mart(red $ino( -0uino heads the impressive list of those !ilipinos in e.ile &ho, unlike the petitioner, held fast to their 2hilippine citi"enship despite the perils of their resistance to the 'arcos regime. The $ottebohm case cited b( the petitioner invoked the international la& principle of effective nationalit( &hich is

ur records sho& that J?-$ F-##-$ %!R98-#G , born on ctober 4B, )*)>, &as naturali"ed in this Court on Januar( 4B, )*+:, and issued Certificate of $aturali"ation $o. ))5*B),+. 2etition $o. 4+B44>. -lien Registration $o. -4: B,* 4,B. 8er( trul( (ours,

69##9-' 6H9TT-NER Clerk b(1 (%gd.)

#.

-R-CE#9 8. /-RE$ Geput( Clerk This evidence is not denied b( the petitioner. 9n fact, he e.pressl( admitted it in his ans&er. $evertheless, as earlier noted, he claims it &as =forced= on him as a measure of protection from the persecution of the 'arcos

clearl( not applicable to the case at bar. This principle is e.pressed in -rticle > of the Hague Convention of )*:B on the Conflict of $ationalit( #a&s as follo&s1 -rt. >. 6ithin a third %tate a person having more than one nationalit( shall be treated as if he had onl( one. 6ithout pre7udice to the application of its la& in matters of personal status and of an( convention in force, a third %tate shall, of the nationalities &hich an( such person possesses, recogni"e e.clusivel( in its territor( either the nationalit( of the countr( in &hich he is habituall( and principall( resident or the nationalit( of the countr( &ith &hich in the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closel( connected. $ottebohm &as a Ferman b( birth but a resident of Fuatemala for :A (ears &hen he applied for and ac0uired

naturali"ation in #iechtenstein one month before the outbreak of 6orld 6ar 99. 'an( members of his famil( and his business interests &ere in Ferman(. 9n )*A:, Fuatemala, &hich had declared &ar on Ferman(, arrested $ottebohm and confiscated all his properties on the ground that he &as a Ferman national. #iechtenstein thereupon filed suit on his behalf, as its citi"en, against Fuatemala. The 9nternational Court of Justice held $ottebohm to be still a national of Ferman(, &ith &hich he &as more closel( connected than &ith #iechtenstein. That case is not relevant to the petition before us because it dealt &ith a conflict bet&een the nationalit( la&s of t&o states as decided b( a third state. $o third state is involved in the case at bar3 in fact, even the ?nited %tates is not activel( claiming !rivaldo as its national. The sole 0uestion presented to us is &hether or not !rivaldo is a citi"en of the 2hilippines under our own laws, regardless of other nationalit( la&s. 6e can decide this 0uestion alone as sovereign of our o&n territor(, conformabl( to %ection ) of the said Convention providing that =it is for each %tate to determine under its law &ho are its nationals.= 9t is also &orth noting that $ottebohm &as invo:ing his naturali"ation in #iechtenstein &hereas in the present case !rivaldo is re'ecting his naturali"ation in the ?nited %tates.

9f he reall( &anted to disavo& his -merican citi"enship and reac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship, the petitioner should have done so in accordance &ith the la&s of our countr(. ?nder C- $o. 5: as amended b( C- $o. A,: and 2G $o. ,4>, 2hilippine citi"enship ma( be reac0uired b( direct act of Congress, b( naturali"ation, or b( repatriation. 6hile !rivaldo does not invoke either of the first t&o methods, he nevertheless claims he has reac0uired 2hilippine citi"enship b( virtue of a valid repatriation. He claims that b( activel( participating in the elections in this countr(, he automaticall( forfeited -merican citi"enship under the la&s of the ?nited %tates. %uch la&s do not concern us here. The alleged forfeiture is bet&een him and the ?nited %tates as his adopted countr(. 9t should be obvious that even if he did lose his naturali"ed -merican citi"enship, such forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automaticall( restoring his citi"enship in the 2hilippines that he had earlier renounced. -t best, &hat might have happened as a result of the loss of his naturali"ed citi"enship &as that he became a stateless individual. !rivaldoEs contention that he could not have repatriated himself under # 9 4,B because the %pecial Committee provided for therein had not (et been constituted seems to suggest that the lack of that bod( rendered his repatriation unnecessar(. That is farC

fetched if not specious %uch a conclusion &ould open the floodgates, as it &ere. 9t &ould allo& all !ilipinos &ho have renounced this countr( to claim back their abandoned citi"enship &ithout formall( re7ecting their adoptedstate and reaffirming their allegiance to the 2hilippines. 9t does not appear that !rivaldo has taken these categorical acts. He contends that b( simpl( filing his certificate of candidac( he had, &ithout more, alread( effectivel( recovered 2hilippine citi"enship. /ut that is hardl( the formal declaration the la& envisions H surel(, 2hilippine citi"enship previousl( diso&ned is not that cheapl( recovered. 9f the %pecial Committee had not (et been convened, &hat that meant simpl( &as that the petitioner had to &ait until this &as done, or seek naturali"ation b( legislative or 7udicial proceedings. The argument that the petition filed &ith the Commission on Elections should be dismissed for tardiness is not &ellCtaken. The herein private respondents are seeking to prevent !rivaldo from continuing to discharge his office of governor because he is dis0ualified from doing so as a foreigner. Iualifications for public office are continuing re0uirements and must be possessed not onl( at the time of appointment or election or assumption of office but during the officerEs entire tenure. nce an( of the re0uired 0ualifications is lost, his title ma( be seasonabl( challenged. 9f, sa(, a female

legislator &ere to marr( a foreigner during her term and b( her act or omission ac0uires his nationalit(, &ould she have a right to remain in office simpl( because the challenge to her title ma( no longer be made &ithin ten da(s from her proclamationD 9t has been established, and not even denied, that the evidence of !rivaldoEs naturali"ation &as discovered onl( eight months after his proclamation and his title &as challenged shortl( thereafter. This Court &ill not permit the anomal( of a person sitting as provincial governor in this countr( &hile o&ing e.clusive allegiance to another countr(. The fact that he &as elected b( the people of %orsogon does not e.cuse this patent violation of the salutar( rule limiting public office and emplo(ment onl( to the citi"ens of this countr(. The 0ualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased b( the electorate alone. The &ill of the people as e.pressed through the ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibilit(, especiall( if the( mistakenl( believed, as in this case, that the candidate &as 0ualified. bviousl(, this rule re0uires strict application &hen the deficienc( is lack of citi"enship. 9f a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the 2hilippines, he must o&e his total lo(alt( to this countr( onl(, ab7uring and renouncing all fealt( and fidelit( to an( other state. 9t is true as the petitioner points out that the status of the naturalCborn citi"en is favored b( the Constitution and our

la&s, &hich is all the more reason &h( it should be treasured like a pearl of great price. /ut once it is surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone and cannot be lightl( restored. This countr( of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is like a 7ealous and possessive mother. nce re7ected, it is not 0uick to &elcome back &ith eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. The returning renegade must sho&, b( an e.press and une0uivocal act, the rene&al of his lo(alt( and love. 6HERE! RE, the petition is G9%'9%%EG and petitioner J?-$ F. !R98-#G is hereb( declared not a citi"en of the 2hilippines and therefore G9%I?-#9!9EG from serving as Fovernor of the 2rovince of %orsogon. -ccordingl(, he is ordered to vacate his office and surrender the same to the dul( elected 8iceCFovernor of the said province once this decision becomes final and e.ecutor(. The temporar( restraining order dated 'arch *, )*+*, is #9!TEG. % RGEREG.

$ernan, C.J., Narvasa, +elencio7Herrera, -aras, $eliciano, 8anca.co, -adilla, Bidin, 8ri9o7A(uino, +edialdea and %egalado, JJ., concur. "ar6iento, J., too: no part. Cortes J., concurs in the result. E$ /-$C

;F.R. $o. )4B4*>. June 4+, )**5< J?-$ F. !R98-#G , petitioner, vs. C ''9%%9 $ $ E#ECT9 $%, and R-?# R. #EE, respondents. ;F.R. $o. )4:,>>. June 4+, )**5< R-?# R. #EE, petitioner, vs. C ''9%%9 $ $ E#ECT9 $% and J?-$ F. !R98-#G , respondents. GEC9%9 $

F.R. $o. )4:,>>. This is a special civil action under Rules 5> and >+ of the Rules of Court for certiorari and preliminar( in7unction to revie& and annul a Resolution of the respondent Commission on Elections (Comelec), !irst Givision, ) promulgated on Gecember )*,)**>4 and another Resolution of the Comelec en *ane promulgated !ebruar( 4:, )**5: den(ing petitionerEs motion for reconsideration. The !acts n 'arch 4B, )**>, private respondent Juan F. !rivaldo filed his Certificate of Candidac( for the office of Fovernor of %orsogon in the 'a( +, )**> elections. n 'arch 4:, )**>, petitioner Raul R. #ee, another candidate, filed a petitionA &ith the Comelec docketed as %2- $o. *>CB4+ pra(ing that !rivaldo =be dis0ualified from seeking or holding an( public office or position b( reason of not (et being a citi"en of the 2hilippines,= and that his Certificate of Candidac( be cancelled. n 'a( ), )**>, the %econd Givision of the Comelec
1

2-$F-$9/-$, J.1 The ultimate 0uestion posed before this Court in these t&in cases is1 6ho should be declared the rightful governor of %orsogonH (i) Juan F. !rivaldo, &ho un0uestionabl( obtained the highest number of votes in three successive elections but &ho &as t&ice declared b( this Court to be dis0ualified to hold such office due to his alien citi"enship, and &ho no& claims to have reCassumed his lost 2hilippine citi"enship thru repatriation3 (ii) Raul R. #ee, &ho &as the second placer in the canvass, but &ho claims that the votes cast in favor of !rivaldo should be considered void3 that the electorate should be deemed to have intentionall( thro&n a&a( their ballots3 and that legall., he secured the most number of valid votesK or (iii) The incumbent 8iceCFovernor, scar F. Geri, &ho obviousl( &as not voted directl( to the position of governor, but &ho according to prevailing 7urisprudence should take over the said post inasmuch as, b( the ineligibilit( of !rivaldo, a =permanent vacanc( in the contested office has occurred=D 9n ruling for !rivaldo, the Court la(s do&n ne& doctrines on repatriation, clarifiesLreiteratesLamplifies e.isting 7urisprudence on citi"enship and elections, and upholds the superiorit( of substantial 7ustice over pure legalisms.

Composed of Pres. Comm. Regalado E. Maambong, ponente; Comm. Graduacion A.R. Claravall, concurrg, and Comm. Julio F. Desami o, dissen ing.
!

"n #PC $o. %&'(1), en i led Juan G. Frivaldo, petitioner, vs. Raul R. Lee, responden * Rollo, pp. 11+'1!%.
(

#igned b, C-airman .ernardo P. Pardo, Comms. Regalado E. Maambong, Remedios A. #ala/ar'Fernando, Manolo .. Gorospe and 0eresi a D,'1iaco Flores. C-airman Pardo cer ified -a 2Commissioner Julio F. Desami o 3as on official ravel a -e ime of -e delibera ion and resolu ion of -is case. 4o3ever, -e Commission -as reserved o Comm. Desami o -e rig- o submi a dissen ing opinion.2 Rollo, pp. 1&%' 1)1.
5

Rollo, pp. 56'5%.

promulgated a Resolution> granting petition &ith the follo&ing disposition15

the

=6HERE! RE, this Givision resolves to FR-$T the petition and declares that respondent is G9%I?-#9!9EG to run for the ffice of Fovernor of %orsogon on the ground that he is $ T a citi"en of the 2hilippines. -ccordingl(, respondentEs certificate of candidac( is cancelled.= The 'otion for Reconsideration filed b( !rivaldo remained unacted upon until after the 'a( +, )**> elections. %o, his candidac( continued and he &as voted for during the elections held on said date. n 'a( )), )**>, the Comelec en *anc, affirmed the aforementioned Resolution of the %econd Givision. The 2rovincial /oard of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election returns and a Certificate of 8otes +.dated 'a( 4,, )**> &as issued sho&ing the follo&ing votes obtained b( the candidates for the position of Fovernor of %orsogon1 -ntonio H. Escudero, Jr. >),B5B Juan F. !rivaldo ,:,AAB RaulR.#ee >:,:BA 9sagani 2. campo ),*4>

9n an order)B dated June 4), )**>, but promulgated according to the petition =onl( on June 4*, )**>,= the Comelec en *ane directed =the 2rovincial /oard of Canvassers of %orsogon to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming candidate Raul #ee as the &inning gubernatorial candidate in the province of %orsogon on June 4*,)**> . . ..= -ccordingl(, at +1:B in the evening of June :B,)**>, #ee &as proclaimed governor of %orsogon. n Jul( 5, )**>, !rivaldo filed &ith the Comelec a ne& petition,)) docketed as %2C $o. *>C:),, pra(ing for the annulment of the June :B, )**> proclamation of #ee and for his o&n proclamation. He alleged that on June :B, )**>, at 41BB in the afternoon, he took his oath of allegiance as a citi"en of the 2hilippines after =his petition for repatriation under 2.G. ,4> &hich he filed &ith the %pecial Committee on $aturali"ation in %eptember )**A had been granted.= -s such, &hen =the said order (dated June 4), )**>) (of the Comelec) . . . &as released and received b( !rivaldo on June :B, )**> at >1:B oEclock in the evening, there &as no more legal impediment to the proclamation (of !rivaldo) as governor . . ..= 9n the alternative, he averred that pursuant to the t&o cases of La*o vs. Co6elec,)4 the 8iceCFovernorH not #ee H should occup( said position of governor. n Gecember )*, )**>, the Comelec !irst Givision promulgated the herein assailed Resolution): holding that #ee, =not having garnered the highest number of votes,= &as not legall( entitled to be proclaimed as dul(C elected governor3 and that !rivaldo, =having garnered the highest number of votes, and ... having reac0uired his !ilipino citi"enship b( repatriation on June :B, )**> under the provisions of 2residential Gecree $o. ,4> ... (is) 0ualified to hold the office of governor of %orsogon=3 thus1 =2RE'9%E% C $%9GEREG, the Commission (!irst Givision), therefore RE% #8E% to FR-$T the 2etition.

n June *, )**>, #ee filed in said %2- $o. *>CB4+, a (supplemental) petition * pra(ing for his proclamation as the dul(Celected Fovernor of %orsogon.

&

Rollo, pp. &+'&&. 0-e #econd Division 3as composed of Pres. Comm. Remedies A. #ala/ar'Fernando, ponente; Comm. 0eresi a D,'1iaco Flores, concurring, and Comm. Manolo .. Gorospe 72on official business28.

Consistent &ith the decisions of the %upreme Court, the proclamation of Raul R. #ee as Fovernor of %orsogon is hereb( ordered annulled, being contrar( to la&, he not having garnered the highest number of votes to &arrant his proclamation. ?pon the finalit( of the annulment of the proclamation of Raul R. #ee, the 2rovincial /oard of Canvassers is directed to immediatel( reconvene and, on the basis of the completed canvass, proclaim petitioner Juan F. !rivaldo as the dul( elected Fovernor of %orsogon having garnered the highest number of votes, and he having reac0uired his !ilipino citi"enship b( repatriation on June :B,)**> under the provisions of 2residential Gecree $o. ,4> and, thus, 0ualified to hold the office of Fovernor of %orsogon. Conformabl( &ith %ection 45B of the mnibus Election Code (B.-. Blg. GG/), the Clerk of the Commission is directed to notif( His E.cellenc( the 2resident of the 2hilippines, and the %ecretar( of the %angguniang 2anlala&igan of the 2rovince of %orsogon of this resolution immediatel( upon the due implementation thereof.= n Gecember 45,)**>, #ee filed a motion for reconsideration &hich &as denied b( the Comelec en *anc in its Resolution)A promulgated on !ebruar( 4:, )**5. n !ebruar( 45, )**5, the present petition &as filed. -cting on the pra(er for a temporar( restraining order, this Court issued on !ebruar( 4,, )**5 a Resolution &hich inter alia directed the parties =to maintain the status (uo prevailing prior to the filing of this petition.= The 9ssues in F.R. $o. )4:,>> 2etitioner #eeEs =position on the matter at hand briefl( be capsuli"ed in the follo&ing propositions=1)> <$irst 7 The initiator( petition belo& &as so far insufficient in form and substance to &arrant the e.ercise b( the C 'E#EC of its 7urisdiction &ith the result that, in effect, the

C 'E#EC acted &ithout 7urisdiction in taking cogni"ance of and deciding said petition3 "econd7 The 7udiciall( declared dis0ualification of respondent &as a continuing condition and rendered him ineligible to run for, to be elected to and to hold the ffice of Fovernor3 Third 7 The alleged repatriation of respondent &as neither valid nor is the effect thereof retroactive as to cure his ineligibilit( and 0ualif( him to hold the ffice of Fovernor3 and $ourth 7 Correctl( read and applied, the #abo Goctrine full( supports the validit( of petitionerEs proclamation as dul( elected Fovernor of %orsogon.= F.R. $o. )4B4*> This is a petition to annul three Resolutions of the respondent Comelec, the first t&o of &hich are also at issue in F.R. $o. )4:,>>, as follo&s1 ). Resolution)5 of the %econd Givision, promulgated on 'a( ), )**>, dis0ualif(ing !rivaldo from running for governor of %orsogon in the 'a( +, )**> elections =on the ground that he is not a citi"en of the 2hilippines=3 4. Resolution), of the Comelec en *ane, promulgated on 'a( )), )**>3 and :. Resolution)+ of the Comelec en *ane, promulgated also on 'a( )), )**> suspending the proclamation of, among others, !rivaldo. The !acts and the 9ssue The facts of this case are essentiall( the same as those in F.R. $o. )4:,>>. Ho&ever, !rivaldo assails the aboveCmentioned resolutions on a different ground1 that under %ection ,+ of the mnibus Election Code, &hich is reproduced hereinunder1

=%ection ,+. -etition to den. due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac.. H - verified petition seeking to den( due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac( ma( be filed b( an( person e.clusivel( on the ground that an( material representation contained therein as re0uired under %ection ,A hereof is false. The petition ma( be filed at an( time not later than t&ent(Cfive da(s from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidac( and shall *e decided, after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen da.s *efore the election.< (9talics supplied.) the Comelec had no 7urisdiction to issue said Resolutions because the( &ere not rendered =&ithin the period allo&ed b( la&,= i.e., =not later than fifteen da(s before the election.= ther&ise stated, !rivaldo contends that the failure of the Comelec to act on the petition for dis0ualification &ithin the period of fifteen da(s prior to the election as provided b( la& is a 7urisdictional defect &hich renders the said Resolutions null and void. /( Resolution on 'arch )4, )**5, the Court consolidated F.R. $os. )4B4*> and )4:,>> since the( are intimatel( related in their factual environment and are identical in the ultimate 0uestion raised, vi)., &ho should occup( the position of governor of the province of %orsogon. n 'arch )*, )**>, the Court heard oral argument from the parties and re0uired them thereafter to file simultaneousl( their respective memoranda. The Consolidated 9ssues !rom the foregoing submissions, the consolidated issues ma( be restated as follo&s1 ). 6as the repatriation of !rivaldo valid and legalD 9f so, did it seasonabl( cure his lack of citi"enship as to 0ualif( him to be proclaimed and to hold the ffice of FovernorD 9f not, ma( it be given retroactive effectD 9f so, from &henD

4. 9s !rivaldoEs =7udiciall( declared= dis0ualification for lack of !ilipino citi"enship a continuing bar to his eligibilit( to run for, be elected to or hold the governorship of %orsogonD :. Gid the respondent Comelec have 7urisdiction over the initiator( petition in %2C $o. *>C:), considering that 1 said petition is not =a preCproclamation case, an election protest or a (uo warranto case=D A. 6as the proclamation of #ee, a runnerCup in the election, valid and legal in light of e.isting 7urisprudenceD >. Gid the respondent Commission on Elections e.ceed its 7urisdiction in promulgating the assailed Resolutions, all of &hich prevented !rivaldo from assuming the governorship of %orsogon, considering that the( &ere not rendered &ithin ( the period referred to in %ection ,+ of the mnibus Election Code, vi)., =not later than fifteen da(s before the elections=D The !irst 9ssue1 !rivaldoEs Repatriation The validit( and effectivit( of !rivaldoEs repatriation is the lis 6ota, the threshold legal issue in this case. -ll the other matters raised are secondar( to this. The #ocal Fovernment Code of )**) )* e.pressl( re0uires 2hilippine citi"enship as a 0ualification for elective local officials, including that of provincial governor, thus1 =%ec. :*. Lualifications. H (a) -n elective local official must be a citi"en of the 2hilippines3 a registered voter in the baranga(, municipalit(, cit(, or province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlala&igan, sangguniang panlungsod, or sangguniang ba(an, the district &here he intends to be elected3 a resident therein for at least one ()) (ear immediatel( preceding the da( of the election3 and able to read and &rite !ilipino or an( other local language or dialect. (b) Candidates for the position of governor, vice governor or member of the sangguniang

panlala&igan, or ma(or, vice ma(or or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highl( urbani"ed cities must be at least t&ent(Cthree (4:) (ears of age on election da(. ... ... ...

9nasmuch as !rivaldo had been declared b( this Court4B as a nonCciti"en, it is therefore incumbent upon him to sho& that he has reac0uired citi"enship3 in fine, that he possesses the 0ualifications prescribed under the said statute (R. -. ,)5B). ?nder 2hilippine la&,4) citi"enship ma( be reac0uired b( direct act of Congress, b( naturali"ation or b( repatriation. !rivaldo told this Court in F.R. $o. )BA5>A 44 and during the oral argument in this case that he tried to resume his citi"enship b( direct act of Congress, but that the bill allo&ing him to do so =failed to materiali"e, not&ithstanding the endorsement of several members of the House of Representatives= due, according to him, to the =maneuvers of his political rivals.= 9n the same case, his attempt at naturali)ation &as re7ected b( this Court because of 7urisdictional, substantial and procedural defects. Gespite his lack of 2hilippine citi"enship, !rivaldo &as over&helmingl( elected governor b( the electorate of %orsogon, &ith a margin of 4,,BBB votes in the )*++ elections, >,,BBB in )**4, and 4B,BBB in )**> over the same opponent Raul #ee. T&ice, he &as 7udiciall( declared a nonC!ilipino and thus t&ice dis0ualified from holding and discharging his popular mandate. $o&, he comes to us a third time, &ith a fresh vote from the people of %orsogon and a favorable decision from the Commission on Elections to boot. 'oreover, he no& boasts of having successfull( passed through the third and last mode of reac0uiring citi"enship1 b( repatriation under 2.G. $o. ,4>, &ith no less than the %olicitor Feneral himself, &ho &as the prime opposing counsel in the previous cases he lost, this time, as counsel for coCrespondent Comelec, arguing the validit( of his cause (in addition to his able private counsel %i.to %. /rillantes, Jr.). That

he took his oath of allegiance under the provisions of said Gecree at 41BB p.m. on June :B, )**> is not disputed. Hence, he insists that heHnot #eeHshould have been proclaimed as the dul(Celected governor of %orsogon &hen the 2rovincial /oard of Canvassers met at +1:B p.m. on the said date since, clearl( and un0uestionabl(, he garnered the highest number of votes in the elections and since at that time, he alread( reac0uired his citi"enship. En contrario, #ee argues that !rivaldoEs repatriation is tainted 3 &ith serious defects, &hich &e shall no& discuss in seriatim. !irst, #ee tells us that 2.G. $o. ,4> had =been effectivel( repealed,= asserting that =then 2resident Cora"on -0uino e.ercising legislative po&ers under the Transitor( 2rovisions of the )*+, Constitution, forbade the grant of citi"enship b( 2residential Gecree or E.ecutive 9ssuances as the same poses a serious and contentious issue of polic( &hich the present government, in the e.ercise of prudence and sound discretion, should best leave to the 7udgment of the first Congress under the )*+, Constitution,= adding that in her memorandum dated 'arch 4,,)*+, to the members of the %pecial Committee on $aturali"ation constituted for purposes of 2residential Gecree $o. ,4>, 2resident -0uino directed them =to cease and desist from undertaking an( and all proceedings &ithin (our functional area of responsibilit( as defined under #etter of 9nstructions (# 9) $o. 4,B dated -pril )), )*,>, as amended.= 4: This memorandum dated 'arch 4,, )*+, 4A cannot b( an( stretch of legal hermeneutics be construed as a la& sanctioning or authori"ing a repeal of 2.G. $o. ,4>. #a&s are repealed onl( b( subse0uent ones 4> and a repeal ma( be e.press or implied. 9t is obvious that no e5press repeal was made because then 2resident -0uino in her memorandum H based on the cop( furnished us b( #ee H did not categoricall( andLor impliedl( state that 2.G. ,4> &as being repealed or &as being rendered &ithout an( legal effect. 9n fact, she did not even mention it specificall( b( its number or te.t. n the other hand, it is a basic rule of statutor( construction that repeals *.

i6plication are not favored. -n implied repeal &ill not be allo&ed =unless it is convincingl( and unambiguousl( demonstrated that the t&o la&s are clearl( repugnant and patentl( inconsistent that the( cannot coCe.ist.= 45 The memorandum of then 2resident -0uino cannot even be regarded as a legislative enactment, for not ever( pronouncement of the Chief E.ecutive even under the Transitor( 2rovisions of the )*+, Constitution can nor should be regarded as an e.ercise of her la&C making po&ers. -t best, it could be treated as an e.ecutive polic( addressed to the %pecial Committee to halt the acceptance and processing of applications for repatriation pending &hatever =7udgment the first Congress under the )*+, Constitution= might make. 9n other &ords, the former 2resident did not repeal 2.G. ,4> but left it to the first Congress H once createdHto deal &ith the matter. 9f she had intended to repeal such la&, she should have une0uivocall( said so instead of referring the matter to Congress. The fact is she carefull( couched her presidential issuance in terms that clearl( indicated the intention of =the present government, in the e.ercise of prudence and sound discretion= to leave the matter of repeal to the ne& Congress. -n( other interpretation of the said 2residential 'emorandum, such as is no& being proffered to the Court b( #ee, &ould visit unmitigated violence not onl( upon statutor( construction but on common sense as &ell. "econd. #ee also argues that =serious congenital irregularities fla&ed the repatriation proceedings,= asserting that !rivaldoEs application therefor &as =filed on June 4*, )**> . . . (and) &as approved in 7ust one da( or on June :B, )**> . . .,= &hich =prevented a 7udicious revie& and evaluation of the merits thereof.= !rivaldo counters that he filed his application for repatriation &ith the ffice of the 2resident in 'alacanang 2alace on -ugust ),, )**A. This is confirmed b( the %olicitor Feneral. Ho&ever, the %pecial Committee &as reactivated onl( on June +, )**>, &hen presumabl( the said Committee started processing his application. n June 4*, )**>, he filled up and reCsubmitted the ! R' that the Committee re0uired. ?nder

these circumstances, it could not be said that there &as =indecent haste= in the processing of his application. -nent #eeEs charge that the =sudden reconstitution of the %pecial Committee on $aturali"ation &as intended solel( for the personal interest of respondent,= 4, the %olicitor Feneral e.plained during the oral argument on 'arch )*, )**5 that such allegation is simpl( baseless as there &ere man( others &ho applied and &ere considered for repatriation, a list of &hom &as submitted b( him to this Court, through a 'anifestation4+ filed on -pril :, )**5. n the basis of the partiesE submissions, &e are convinced that the presumption of regularit( in the performance of official dut( and the presumption of legalit( in the repatriation of !rivaldo have not been successfull( rebutted b( #ee. The mere fact that the proceedings &ere speeded up is b( itself not a ground to conclude that such proceedings &ere necessaril( tainted. -fter all, the re0uirements of repatriation under 2.G. $o. ,4> are not difficult to compl( &ith, nor are the( tedious and cumbersome. 9n fact, 2.G. ,4>4* itself re0uires ver( little of an applicant, and even the rules and regulations to implement the said decree &ere left to the %pecial Committee to promulgate. This is not unusual since, unlike in naturali"ation &here an alien covets a first7ti6e entr( into 2hilippine political life, in repatriation the applicant is a former naturalCborn !ilipino &ho is merel( seeking to reac0uire his previous citi"enship. 9n the case of !rivaldo, he &as undoubtedl( a naturalCborn citi"en &ho openl( and faithfull( served his countr( and his province prior to his naturali"ation in the ?nited %tates H a naturali"ation he insists &as made necessar( onl( to escape the iron clutches of a dictatorship he abhorred and could not in conscience embrace H and &ho, after the fall of the dictator and the reC establishment of democratic space, &asted no time in returning to his countr( of birth to offer once more his talent and services to his people. %o too, the fact that ten other persons, as certified to b( the %olicitor Feneral, &ere

granted repatriation argues convincingl( and conclusivel( against the e.istence of favoritism vehementl( posited b( Raul #ee. -t an( rate, an( contest on the legalit( of !rivaldoEs repatriation should have been pursued before the Committee itself, and, failing there, in the ffice of the 2resident, pursuant to the doctrine of e.haustion of administrative remedies. Third. #ee further contends that assuming the assailed repatriation to be valid, nevertheless it could onl( be effective as at 41BB p.m. of June :B, )**> &hereas the citi"enship 0ualification prescribed b( the #ocal Fovernment Code =must e.ist on the date of his election, if not &hen the certificate of candidac( is filed,= citing our decision in F.R. )BA5>A:B &hich held that =both the #ocal Fovernment Code and the Constitution re0uire that onl( 2hilippine citi"ens can run and *e elected to -u*lic office< bviousl(, ho&ever, this &as a mere o*iter as the onl( issue in said case &as &hether !rivaldoEs naturali"ation &as valid or not H and $ T the effective date thereof. %ince the Court held his naturali"ation to be invalid, then the issue of when an aspirant for public office should be a citi"en &as $ T resolved at all b( the Court. 6hich 0uestion &e shall no& directl( rule on. ?nder %ec. :* of the #ocal Fovernment Code, =(a)n elective local official must be1 S a citi"en of the 2hilippines3 S a registered voter in the baranga(, municipalit(, cit(, or province . . . &here he intends to be elected3 S a resident therein for at least one ()) (ear immediatel( preceding the da( of the election3 S able to read and &rite !ilipino or an( other local language or dialect.= S 9n addition, =candidates for the position of governor . . . must be at least t&ent(Cthree (4:) (ears of age on election da(.=

!rom the above, it &ill be noted that the la& does not specif( an( particular date or time &hen the candidate must possess citi"enship, unlike that for residence (&hich must consist of at least one .ear4s residenc. i66ediatel. preceding the da( of election) and age (at least t&ent( three (ears of age on election da.I. 2hilippine citi"enship is an indispensable re0uirement for holding an elective public office,:) and the purpose of the citi"enship 0ualification is none other than to ensure that no alien, i.e., no person o&ing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our people and our countr( or a unit of territor( thereof. $o&, an official begins to govern or to discharge his functions onl( upon his proclamation and on the da( the la& mandates his term of office to begin. %ince !rivaldo reCassumed his citi"enship on June :B, )**>Hthe ver( da(:4 the term of office of governor (and other elective officials) beganHhe &as therefore alread( 0ualified to be proclaimed, to hold such office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities thereof as of said date. 9n short, at that time, he &as alread( 0ualified to govern his native %orsogon. This is the liberal interpretation that should give spirit, life and meaning to our la& on 0ualifications consistent &ith the purpose for &hich such la& &as enacted. %o too, even from a literal Has distinguished from li*eralI construction, it should be noted that %ection :* of the #ocal Fovernment Code speaks of <Lualifications< of =E#ECT98E !!9C9-#%,= not of candidates. 6h( then should such 0ualification be re0uired at the time of election or at the time of the filing of the certificates of candidacies, as #ee insistsD #iterall(, such 0ualifications H unless other&ise e.pressl( conditioned, as in the case of age and residence H should thus be possessed &hen the =elective ;or elected< official= begins to govern, i.e., at the time he is proclaimed and at the start of his term H in this case, on June :B, )**>. 2araphrasing this CourtEs ruling in Das(ue) vs. 8iapand Li "eng 8iap & "ons, :: if the purpose of the citi"enship re0uirement is to ensure that our people and countr( do not end up being governed b( aliens, i.e., persons o&ing allegiance to another nation, that aim or purpose &ould not *e thwarted *ut instead

achieved b( construing the citi"enship 0ualification as appl(ing to the time of proclamation of the elected official and at the start of his term. /ut perhaps the more difficult ob7ection &as the one raised during the oral argument :A to the effect that the citi"enship 0ualification should be possessed at the time the candidate (or for that matter the elected official) registered as a voter. -fter all, %ection :*, apart from re0uiring the official to be a citi"en, also specifies as another item of 0ualification, that he be a =registered voter.= -nd, under the la&:> a =voter= must be a citi"en of the 2hilippines. %o therefore, !rivaldo could not have been a voterCmuch less a validl. registered one H if he &as not a citi"en at the time of such registration. The ans&er to this problem again lies in discerning the purpose of the re0uirement. 9f the la& intended the citi)enship 0ualification to be possessed prior to election consistent &ith the re0uirement of being a registered voter, then it &ould not have made citi"enship a %E2-R-TE 0ualification. The la& abhors a redundanc(. 9t therefore stands to reason that the la& intended C9T9JE$%H92 to be a 0ualification distinct from being a 8 TER, even if being a voter presumes being a citi"en first. 9t also stands to reason that the voter re0uirement &as included as another 0ualification (aside from =citi"enship=), not to reiterate the need for nationalit( but to re0uire that the official be registered as a voter 9$ THE -RE- R TERR9T R@ he seeks to govern, i.e., the la& states1 =a registered voter in the baranga(, municipalit(, cit(, or province . . . &here he intends to be elected.= 9t should be emphasi"ed that the #ocal Fovernment Code re0uires an elective official to *e a registered voter. 9t does not re0uire him to vote actuall.. Hence, registrationHnot the actual votingHis the core of this =0ualification.= 9n other &ords, the la&Es purpose in this second re0uirement is to ensure that the prospective official is actuall( registered in the area he seeks to govern H and not an.where else. /efore this Court, !rivaldo has repeatedl( emphasi"edHand #ee has not disputed H

that he =&as and is a registered voter of %orsogon, and his registration as a voter has been sustained as valid b( 7udicial declaration . . . 9n fact, he cast his vote in his precinct on 'a( +, )**>.=:5 %o too, during the oral argument, his counsel steadCfastl( maintained that ='r. !rivaldo has al&a(s been a registered voter of %orsogon. He has voted in )*+,,)*++,)**4, then he voted again in )**>. 9n fact, his eligibilit( as a voter &as 0uestioned, but the court dismissed (sic) his eligibilit( as a voter and he &as allo&ed to vote as in fact, he voted in all the previous elections including on 'a( +,)**>. :, 9t is thus clear that !rivaldo is a registered voter in the province &here he intended to be elected. There is (et another reason &h( the prime issue of citi)enship should be reckoned from the date of proclamation, not necessaril( the date of election or date of filing of the certificate of candidac(. %ection 4>: of the mnibus Election Code:+ gives an( voter, presumabl( including the defeated candidate, the opportunit( to 0uestion the E#9F9/9#9T@ (or the dislo(alt() of a candidate. This is the onl( provision of the Code that authori"es a remed( on ho& to contest before the Comelec an incumbentEs ineligibilit( arising from failure to meet the 0ualifications enumerated under %ec. :* of the #ocal Fovernment Code. %uch remed( of Luo Farranto can be availed of =&ithin ten da(s after proclamation= of the &inning candidate. Hence, it is onl. at such ti6e that the issue of ineligibilit( ma( be taken cogni"ance of b( the Commission. -nd since, at the ver( moment of #eeEs proclamation (+1:B p.m., June :B, )**>), Juan F. !rivaldo &as alread( and indubitabl( a citi"en, having taken his oath of allegiance earlier in the afternoon of the same da(, then he should have been the candidate proclaimed as he un0uestionabl( garnered the highest number of votes in the immediatel( preceding elections and such oath had alread( cured his previous =7udiciall(Cdeclared= alienage. Hence, at such time, he &as no longer ineligible.

/ut to remove all doubts on this important issue, &e also hold that the repatriation of !rivaldo RETR -CTEG to the date of the filing of his application on -ugust ),,)**A. 9t is true that under the Civil Code of the 2hilippines,:* =(l)a&s shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrar( is provided.= /ut there are settled e.ceptions AB to this general rule, such as &hen the statute is C?R-T98E or RE'EG9-# in nature or &hen it CRE-TE% $E6 R9FHT%. -ccording to Tolentino,A) curative statutes are those &hich undertake to cure errors and irregularities, thereb( validating 7udicial or administrative proceedings, acts of public officers, or private deeds and contracts which otherwise would not produce their intended conse(uences *. reason of so6e statutor. disa*ilit. or failure to co6pl. with so6e technical re(uire6ent. The( operate on conditions alread( e.isting, and are necessaril( retroactive in operation. -gpalo, A4 on the other hand, sa(s that curative statutes are =healing acts . . . curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing e.isting obligations . . . (and) are intended to suppl( defects, abridge superfluities in e.isting la&s, and curb certain evils . . . /( their ver( nature, curative statutes are retroactive ... (and) reach back to past events to correct errors or irregularities and to render valid and effective attempted acts &hich &ould be other&ise ineffective for the purpose the parties intended.= n the other hand, remedial or procedural la&s, i.e., those statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, &hich do not create ne& or take a&a( vested rights, but onl( operate in furtherance of the remed( or confirmation of such rights, ordinaril( do not come &ithin the legal meaning of a retrospective la&, nor &ithin the general rule against the retrospective operation of statutes.A: - reading of 2.G. ,4> immediatel( sho&s that it creates a ne& right, and also provides for a ne& remed(, thereb( filling certain voids in our la&s. Thus, in its preamble, 2.G. ,4>

e.pressl( recogni"es the plight of =man( !ilipino &omen (&ho) had lost their 2hilippine citi"enship b( marriage to aliens= and &ho could not, under the e.isting la& (C. -. $o. 5:, as amended) avail of repatriation until =after the death of their husbands or the termination of their marital status= and &ho could neither be benefitted b( the )*,: ConstitutionEs ne& provision allo&ing =a !ilipino &oman &ho marries an alien to retain her 2hilippine citi"enship ...= because =such provision of the ne& Constitution does not appl( to !ilipino &omen &ho had married aliens before said constitution took effect.= Thus, 2.G. ,4> granted a ne& right to these &omenHthe right to reCac0uire !ilipino citi"enship even during their marital coverture, &hich right did not e.ist prior to 2.G. ,4>. n the other hand, said statute also provided a ne& remed( and a ne& right in favor of other =natural born !ilipinos &ho (had) lost their 2hilippine citi"enship but no& desire to reC ac0uire 2hilippine citi"enship,= because prior to the promulgation of 2.G. ,4> such former !ilipinos &ould have had to undergo the tedious and cumbersome process of naturali"ation, but &ith the advent of 2.G. ,4> the( could no& reCac0uire their 2hilippine citi"enship under the simplified procedure of repatriation. The %olicitor FeneralAA argues1 =/( their ver( nature, curative statutes are retroactive, (G/2 vs. C-, *5 %CR- :A4), since the( are intended to suppl( defects, abridge superfluities in e.isting la&s (Gel Castillo vs. %ecurities and E.change Commission, *5 2hil. ))*) and curb certain evils (%antos vs. Guata, )A %CR- )BA)). 9n this case, 2.G. $o. ,4> &as enacted to cure the defect in the e.isting naturali"ation la&, specificall( C. -. $o. 5: &herein married !ilipino &omen are allo&ed to repatriate onl( upon the death of their husbands, and naturalC born !ilipinos &ho lost their citi"enship b( naturali"ation and other causes faced the difficult( of undergoing the rigid procedures of C.-. 5: for reac0uisition of !ilipino citi"enship b( naturali"ation.

2residential Gecree $o. ,4> provided a remed( for the aforementioned legal aberrations and thus its provisions are considered essentiall( remedial and curative.= 9n light of the foregoing, and prescinding from the &ording of the preamble, it is unarguable that the legislative intent &as precisel( to give the statute retroactive operation. =(-) retrospective operation is given to a statute or amendment &here the intent that it should so operate clearl( appears from a consideration of the act as a &hole, or from the terms thereof.=A> 9t is obvious to the Court that the statute &as meant to =reach back= to those persons, events and transactions not other&ise covered b( prevailing la& and 7urisprudence. -nd inasmuch as it has been held that citi"enship is a political and civil right e0uall( as important as the freedom of speech, libert( of abode, the right against unreasonable searches and sei"ures and other guarantees enshrined in the /ill of Rights, therefore the legislative intent to give retrospective operation to 2.G. ,4> must be given the fullest effect possible. =(9)t has been said that a re6edial statute 6ust *e so construed as to 6a:e it effect the evident purpose for 7which it was enacted, so that if the reason of the statute e5tends to past transactions, as &ell as to those in the future, then it &ill be so applied although the statute does not in terms so direct, unless to do so &ould impair some vested right or violate some constitutional guarant(.= A5 This is all the more true of 2.G. ,4>, &hich did not specif( an( restrictions on or delimit or 0ualif( the right of repatriation granted therein. -t this point, a valid 0uestion ma( be raised1 Ho& can the retroactivit( of 2.G. ,4> benefit !rivaldo considering that said la& &as enacted on June >,)*,>, &hile !rivaldo lost his !ilipino citi"enship much later, on Januar( 4B, )*+:, and applied for repatriation even later, on -ugust ),, )**AD 6hile it is true that the la& &as alread( in effect at the time that !rivaldo became an -merican citi"en, nevertheless, it is not onl( the la& itself (2.G. ,4>) &hich is tobe given retroactive effect, but even the repatriation granted under said la& to !rivaldo on June

:B, )**> is to be deemed to have retroacted to the date of his application therefor, -ugust ),, )**A. The reason for this is simpl( that if, as in this case, it &as the intent of the legislative authorit( that the la& should appl( to past events H i.e., situations and transactions e5isting even *efore the law ca6e into *eing H in order to benefit the greatest number of former !ilipinos possible thereb( enabling them to en7o( and e.ercise the constitutionall( guaranteed right of citi"enship, and such legislative intention is to be given the fullest effect and e.pression, then there is all the 6ore reason to have the law appl. in a retroactive or retrospective 6anner to situations, events and transactions su*se(uent to the passage of such law. That is, the repatriation granted to !rivaldo on June :B, )**> can and should be made to take effect as of date of his application. -s earlier mentioned, there is nothing in the la& that &ould bar this or &ould sho& a contrar( intention on the part of the legislative authorit(3 and there is no sho&ing that damage or pre7udice to an(one, or an(thing un7ust or in7urious &ould result from giving retroactivit( to his repatriation. $either has #ee sho&n that there &ill result the impairment of an( contractual obligation, disturbance of an( vested right or breach of some constitutional guarant(. /eing a former !ilipino &ho has served the people repeatedl(, !rivaldo deserves a liberal interpretation of 2hilippine la&s and &hatever defects there &ere in his nationalit( should no& be deemed mooted b( his repatriation. -nother argument for retroactivit( to the date of filing is that it &ould prevent pre7udice to applicants. 9f 2.G. ,4> &ere not to be given retroactive effect, and the %pecial Committee decides not to act, i.e., to dela( the processing of applications for an( substantial length of time, then the former !ilipinos &ho ma( be stateless, as !rivaldoHhaving alread( renounced his -merican citi"enship H &as, ma( be pre7udiced for causes outside their control. This should not be. 9n case of doubt in the interpretation or application of la&s, it is to be presumed that the la&Cmaking bod( intended right and 7ustice to prevail. A,

-nd as e.perience &ill sho&, the %pecial Committee &as able to process, act upon and grant applications for repatriation &ithin relativel( short spans of time after the same &ere filed.A+ The fact that such interregna &ere relativel( insignificant minimi"es the likelihood of pre7udice to the government as a result of giving retroactivit( to repatriation. /esides, to the mind of the Court, direct pre7udice to the government is possible onl( &here a personEs repatriation has the effect of &iping out a liabilit( of his to the government arising in connection &ith or as a result of his being an alien, and accruing onl( during the interregnum bet&een application and approval, a situation that is not present in the instant case. -nd it is but right and 7ust that the mandate of the people, alread( t&ice frustrated, should no& prevail. ?nder the circumstances, there is nothing un7ust or ini0uitous in treating !rivaldoEs repatriation as having become effective as of the date of his application, i.e., on -ugust ),, )**A. This being so, all 0uestions about his possession of the nationalit( 0ualificationH &hether at the date of proclamation (June :B, )**>) or the date of election ('a( +, )**>) or date of filing his certificate of candidac( ('arch 4B, )**>) &ould become moot. /ased on the foregoing, an( 0uestion regarding !rivaldoEs status as a registered voter &ould also be deemed settled. 9nasmuch as he is considered as having been repatriatedHi.e., his !ilipino citi"enship restored H as of -ugust ),, )**A, his previous registration as a voter is like&ise deemed validated as of said date. 9t is not disputed that on Januar( 4B, )*+: !rivaldo became an -merican. 6ould the retroactivit( of his repatriation not effectivel( give him dual citi"enship, &hich under %ec. AB of the #ocal Fovernment Code &ould dis0ualif( him =from running for an( elective local positionD=A* 6e ans&er this 0uestion in the negative, as there is cogent reason to hold that !rivaldo &as reall( %T-TE#E%% at the time he took said oath of allegiance and even before that, &hen he ran for governor in )*++. 9n his Comment, !rivaldo &rote that he =had

long renounced and had long abandoned his -merican citi"enshipHlong before 'a( +, )**>. -t best, !rivaldo &as stateless in the interim H &hen he abandoned and renounced his ?% citi"enship but before he &as repatriated to his !ilipino citi"enship.=>B n this point, &e 0uote from the assailed Resolution dated Gecember )*, )**>1>) =/( the la&s of the ?nited %tates, petitioner !rivaldo lost his -merican citi"enship &hen he took his oath of allegiance to the 2hilippine Fovernment &hen he ran for Fovernor in )*++, in )**4, and in )**>. Ever( certificate of candidac( contains an oath of allegiance to the 2hilippine Fovernment.= These factual findings that !rivaldo has lost his foreign nationalit( long before the elections of )**> have not been effectivel( rebutted b( #ee. !urthermore, it is basic that such findings of the Commission are conclusive upon this Court, absent an( sho&ing of capriciousness or arbitrariness or abuse.>4 The %econd 9ssue1 9s #ack of Citi"enship a Continuing Gis0ualificationD #ee contends that the 'a( ),)**> Resolution>: of the Comelec %econd Givision in %2- $o. *>CB4+ as affirmed in toto b( Comelec n Banc in its Resolution of 'a( )), )**> =became final and e.ecutor( after five (>) da(s or on 'a( ),,)**>, no restraining order having been issued b( this Honorable Court.=>A Hence, before #ee =&as proclaimed as the elected governor on June :B, )**>, there &as alread( a final and e.ecutor( 7udgment dis0ualif(ing= !rivaldo. #ee adds that this CourtEs t&o rulings (&hich !rivaldo no& concedes &ere legall( =correct=) declaring !rivaldo an alien have also become final and e.ecutor( &a( before the )**> elections, and these =7udicial pronouncements of his political status as an -merican citi"en absolutel( and for all time dis0ualified (him) from running for, and holding an( public office in the 2hilippines.= 6e do not agree.

9t should be noted that our first ruling in F.R. $o. +,)*: dis0ualif(ing !rivaldo &as rendered in connection &ith the )*++ elections &hile that in F.R. $o. )BA5>A &as in connection &ith the )**4 elections. That he &as dis0ualified for such elections is final and can no longer be changed. 9n the &ords of the respondent Commission (%econd Givision) in its assailed Resolution1>> =The records sho& that the Honorable %upreme Court had decided that !rivaldo &as not a !ilipino citi"en and thus dis0ualified for the purpose of the )*++ and )**4 elections. Ho&ever, there is no record of an( Efinal 7udgmentE of the dis0ualification of !rivaldo as a candidate for the 'a( +, )**> elections. 6hat the Commission said in its rder of June 4), )**> (i6ple6ented on June 1C, /002), directing the proclamation of Raul R. #ee, &as that !rivaldo &as not a !ilipino citi"en 4having *een declared *. the "upre6e Court in its Order dated +arch A2, /002, not a citi)en of the -hilippines.E This declaration of the %upreme Court, ho&ever, &as in connection &ith the )**4 elections.= 9ndeed, decisions declaring the ac0uisition or denial of citi"enship cannot govern a personEs future status &ith finalit(. This is because a person ma( subse0uentl( reac0uire, or for that matter lose, his citi"enship under an( of the modes recogni"ed b( la& for the purpose. Hence, in Lee vs. Co66issioner of !66igration,>5 &e held1 =Ever(time the citi"enship of a person is material or indispensable in a 7udicial or administrative case, &hatever the corresponding court or administrative authorit( decides therein as to such citi"enship is generall( not considered res 'udicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again, as the occasion demands.= The Third 9ssue1 ComelecEs Jurisdiction ver The 2etition in %2C $o. *>C:), #ee also avers that respondent Comelec had no 7urisdiction to entertain the petition in %2C $o. *>C:), because the onl( =possible t(pes of proceedings that ma( be entertained b( the

Comelec are a preCproclamation case, an election protest or a (uo warranto case.= -gain, #ee reminds us that he &as proclaimed on June :B, )**> but that !rivaldo filed %2C $o. *>C:), 0uestioning his (#eeEs) proclamation onl( on Jul( 5, )**> H =be(ond the >Cda( reglementar( period.= Hence, according to him, !rivaldoEs =recourse &as to file either an election protest or a (uo warranto action.= This argument is not meritorious. The Constitution>, has given the Comelec ample po&er to =e.ercise e.clusive original 7urisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns and 0ualifications of all elective . . . provincial . . . officials.= 9nstead of d&elling at length on the various petitions that Comelec, in the e.ercise of its constitutional prerogatives, ma( entertain, suffice it to sa( that this Court has invariabl( recogni"ed the CommissionEs authorit( to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations Hof &hich %2C $o. *>C:), obviousl( is one.>+ Thus, in +entang vs. CO+ L C,>* &e ruled1 =The petitioner argues that after proclamation and assumption of office, a preCproclamation controvers( is no longer viable. 9ndeed, &e are a&are of cases holding that preC proclamation controversies ma( no longer be entertained b( the C 'E#EC after the &inning candidate has been proclaimed, (citing Fallardo vs. Rimando, )+, %CR- A5:3 %alvacion vs. C 'E#EC, ),B %CR- >):3 Casimiro vs. C 'E#EC, ),) %CR- A5+.) This rule, ho&ever, is premised on an assumption that the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidateEs assumption of office cannot deprive the C 'E#EC of the po&er to make such declaration of nullit(. (citing -guam vs. C 'E#EC, 4: %CR- ++:3 -gba(ani vs. C 'E#EC, )+5 %CR- A+A.)= The Court ho&ever cautioned that such po&er to annul a proclamation must =be done &ithin ten ()B) da(s follo&ing the proclamation.= 9nasmuch as !rivaldoEs petition &as filed onl(

si. (5) da(s after #eeEs proclamation, there is no 0uestion that the Comelec correctl( ac0uired 7urisdiction over the same. The !ourth 9ssue1 6as #eeEs 2roclamation 8alid !rivaldo assails the validit( of the #ee proclamation. 6e uphold him for the follo&ing reasons1 $irst. To paraphrase this Court in La*o vs. CO+ L C,5B =the fact remains that he (#ee) &as not the choice of the sovereign &ill,= and in A(uino vs. CO+ L C, 5) #ee is =a second placer, ... 7ust that, a second placer.= 9n spite of this, #ee anchors his claim to the governorship on the pronouncement of this Court in the aforesaid La*o54 case, as follo&s1 =The rule &ould have been different if the electorate full( a&are in fact and in la& of a candidateEs dis0ualification so as to bring such a&areness &ithin the realm of notoriet(, &ould nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. 9n such case, the electorate ma( be said to have &aived the validit( and efficac( of their votes b( notoriousl( misappl(ing their franchise or thro&ing a&a( their votes, in &hich case, the eligible candidate obtaining the ne.t higher number of votes ma( be deemed elected.= /ut such holding is 0ualified b( the ne.t paragraph, thus1 =/ut this is not the situation obtaining in the instant dispute. 9t has not been sho&n, and none &as alleged, that petitioner #abo &as notoriousl( kno&n as an ineligible candidate, much less the electorate as having kno&n of such fact. n the contrar(, petitioner #abo &as even allo&ed b( no less than the Comelec itself in its resolution dated 'a( )B, )**4 to be voted for the office of the cit. ma(or as its resolution dated 'a( *,)**4 den(ing due course to petitioner #aboEs certificate of candidac( had not (et become final and sub7ect to the final outcome of this case.=

The lastC0uoted paragraph in La*o, unfortunatel( for #ee, is the ruling appropriate in this case because !rivaldo &as in )**> in an identical situation as #abo &as in )**4 &hen the ComelecEs cancellation of his certificate of candidac( &as not (et final on election da( as there &as in both cases a pending motion for reconsideration, for &hich reason Comelec issued an (omnibus) resolution declaring that !rivaldo (like #abo in )**4) and several others can still be voted for in the 'a( +, )**> election, as in fact, he &as. !urthermore, there has been no sufficient evidence presented to sho& that the electorate of %orsogon &as =full( a&are in fact and in la&= of !rivaldoEs alleged dis0ualification as to =bring such a&areness &ithin the realm of notoriet(=, in other &ords, that the voters intentionall( &asted their ballots kno&ing that, in spite of their voting for him, he &as ineligible. 9f La*o has an( relevance at all, it is that the viceCgovernor and not #eeHshould be proclaimed, since in losing the election, #ee &as, to paraphrase La*o again, =obviousl( not the choice of the people= of %orsogon. This is the emphatic teaching of La*o1 =The rule, therefore, is1 the ineligibilit( of a candidate receiving ma7orit( votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the ne.t highest number of votes to be declared elected. - minorit( or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.= "econd. -s &e have earlier declared !rivaldo to have seasonabl( reCac0uired his citi"enship and inasmuch as he obtained the highest number of votes in the )**> elections, heH not #ee Hshould be proclaimed. Hence, #eeEs proclamation &as patentl( erroneous and should no& be corrected. The !ifth 9ssue1 9s %ection ,+ of the Election Code 'andator(D 9n F.R. $o. )4B4*>, !rivaldo claims that the assailed Resolution of the Comelec (%econd Givision) dated 'a( ), )**> and the confirmator( en *anc Resolution of 'a( )), )**> dis0ualif(ing him for &ant of citi"enship

should be annulled because the( &ere rendered be(ond the fifteen ()>) da( period prescribed b( %ection ,+ of the mnibus Election Code &hich reads as follo&s1 =%ection ,+. -etition to den. due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac..; - verified petition seeking to den( due course or to cancel a certificate of candidac( ma( be filed b( an( person e.clusivel( on the ground that an( material representation contained therein as re0uired under %ection ,A hereof is false. The petition ma( be filed at an( time not later than t&ent(Cfive da(s from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidac( and shall *e decided after notice and hearing, not later than fifteen da.s *efore the election< (italics supplied.) This claim is no& moot and academic inasmuch as these resolutions are deemed superseded b( the subse0uent ones issued b( the Commission (!irst Givision) on Gecember )*, )**>, affirmed en *anc5: on !ebruar( 4:, )**5, &hich both upheld his election. -t an( rate, it is obvious that %ection ,+ is merel( director( as %ection 5 of R.-. $o. 55A5 authori"es the Commission to tr( and decide petitions for dis0ualifications even after the elections, thus1 =%EC. 5. ffect of &is(ualification Case.H -n( candidate &ho has been declared b( final 7udgment to be dis0ualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. !f for an. reason a candidate is not declared *. final 'udg6ent *efore an election to *e dis(ualified and he is voted for and receives the 7winning nu6*er of votes in such election, the Court or Co66ission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, in(uir. or protest and, upon 6otion of the co6plainant or an. intervenor, 6a. during the pendenc. thereof order the suspension of the procla6ation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. = (9talics supplied) Refutation of 'r. Justice GavideEs Gissent 9n his dissenting opinion, the esteemed 'r. Justice Hilario F. Gavide, Jr. argues that

2resident -0uinoEs memorandum dated 'arch 4,, )*+, should be vie&ed as a suspension (not a repeal, as urged b( #ee) of 2.G. ,4>. /ut &hether it decrees a suspension or a repeal is a purel( academic distinction because the said issuance is not a statute that can amend or abrogate an e.isting la&. The e.istence and subsistence of 2.G. ,4> &ere recogni"ed in the first !rivaldo case3 5A vi), <HuInder CA No. J1 as a6ended *. CA No. B31 and -.&. No. 3A2, -hilippine citi)enship 6a.*e reac(uired *. 555 repatriation< He also contends that b( allo&ing !rivaldo to register and to remain as a registered voter, the Comelec and in effect this Court abetted a =mocker(= of our t&o previous 7udgments declaring him a nonCciti"en. 6e do not see such abetting or mocker(. The retroactivit( of his repatriation, as discussed earlier, legall( cured &hatever defects there ma( have been in his registration as a voter for the purpose of the )**> elections. %uch retroactivit( did not change his dis0ualifications in )*++ and )**4, &hich &ere the sub7ects of such previous rulings. 'r. Justice Gavide also believes that Luo Farranto is not the sole remed( to 0uestion the ineligibilit( of a candidate, citing the ComelecEs authorit( under %ection ,+ of the mnibus Election Code allo&ing the denial of a certificate of candidac( on the ground of a false material representation therein as re0uired b( %ection ,A. Citing Loong, he then states his disagreement &ith our holding that %ection ,+ is merel( director(. 6e reall( have no 0uarrel. ur point is that !rivaldo &as in error in his claim in F.R. $o. )4B4*> that the Comelec Resolutions promulgated on 'a( ), )**> and 'a( )), )**> &ere invalid because the( &ere issued =not later than fifteen da(s before the election= as prescribed b( %ection ,+. 9n dismissing the petition in F.R. $o. )4B4*>, &e hold that the Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion because =%ection 5 of R. -. 55A5 authori"es the Comelec to tr( and decide dis0ualifications even after the elections.= 9n spite of his disagreement &ith us on this point, i.e., that %ection ,+ =is merel( director(,= &e note that 7ust like us, 'r. Justice Gavide nonetheless votes to =G9%'9%% F.R. $o. )4B4*>.= ne other point. Loong, as 0uoted in the dissent,

teaches that a petition to den( due course under %ection ,+ must be filed &ithin the A27 da. period prescribed therein. The present case ho&ever deals &ith the period during &hich the Comelec ma( decide such petition. -nd &e hold that it ma( be decided even after the fifteen da. period mentioned in %ection ,+. Here, &e rule that a decision pro6ulgated *. the Comelec even after the elections is valid but Loong held that a petition filed *e.ond the 4>Cda( period is out of time. There is no inconsistenc( nor conflict. 'r. Justice Gavide also disagrees &ith the CourtEs holding that, given the uni0ue factual circumstances of !rivaldo, repatriation ma( be given retroactive effect. He argues that such retroactivit( =dilutes= our holding in the first !rivaldo case. /ut the first (and even the second !rivaldo) decision did not directl( involve repatriation as a mode of ac0uiring citi"enship. 9f &e ma( repeat, there is no 0uestion that !rivaldo &as not a !ilipino for purposes of determining his 0ualifications in the )*++ and )**4 elections. That is settled. /ut his supervening repatriation has changed his political status H not in )*++ or )**4, but onl( in the )**> elections. ur learned colleague also disputes our holding that !rivaldo &as stateless prior to his repatriation, sa(ing that =informal renunciation or abandonment is not a ground to lose -merican citi"enship.= %ince our courts are charged onl( &ith the dut( of the determining &ho are 2hilippine nationals, &e cannot rule on the legal 0uestion of &ho are or &ho are not -mericans. 9t is basic in international la& that a %tate determines $#@ those &ho are its o&n citi"ens H not &ho are the citi"ens of other countries.5> The issue here is1 the Comelec made a finding of fact that !rivaldo &as stateless and such finding has not been sho&n b( #ee to be arbitrar( or &himsical. Thus, follo&ing settled case la&, such finding is binding and final. The dissenting opinion also submits that #ee &ho lost b( chasmic margins to !rivaldo in all three previous elections, should be declared &inner because =!rivaldoEs ineligibilit( for being an -merican &as publicl( kno&n.= !irst, there is absolutel( no empirical evidence for

such =public= kno&ledge. %econd, even if there is, such kno&ledge can be true post facto onl( of the last t&o previous elections. Third, even the Comelec and no& this Court &ereLare still deliberating on his nationalit( before, during and after the )**> elections. Ho& then can there be such =public= kno&ledgeD 'r. Justice Gavide submits that %ection :* of the #ocal Fovernment Code refers to the 0ualifications of elective local officials, i.e., candidates, and not elected officials, and that the citi"enship 0ualification ;under par. (a) of that section< must be possessed b( candidates, not merel( at the commencement of the term, but b( election da( at the latest. 6e see it differentl(. %ection :*, par. (a) thereof speaks of =elective local official= &hile par. (b) to (f) refer to =candidates.= 9f the 0ualifications under par. (a) &ere intended to appl( to =candidates= and not elected officials, the legislature &ould have said so, instead of differentiating par. (a) from the rest of the paragraphs. %econdl(, if Congress had meant that the citi"enship 0ualification should be possessed at election da( or prior thereto, it &ould have specificall( stated such detail, the same &a( it did in pars. (b) to (f) for other 0ualifications of candidates for governor, ma(or, etc. 'r. Justice Gavide also 0uestions the giving of retroactive effect to !rivaldoEs repatriation on the ground, among others, that the la& specificall( provides that it is onl( after taking the oath of allegiance that applicants shall be deemed to have reac0uired 2hilippine citi"enship. 6e do not 0uestion &hat the provision states. 6e hold ho&ever that the provision should be understood thus1 that after ta:ing the oath of allegiance the applicant is dee6ed to have reac(uired -hilippine citi)enship, which reac(uisition Hor repatriationI is dee6ed for all purposes and intents to have retroacted to the date of his application therefor. 9n an( event, our =so too= argument regarding the literal meaning of the &ord =elective= in reference to %ection :* of the #ocal Fovernment Code, as &ell as regarding 'r. Justice GavideEs thesis that the ver( &ordings

of 2.G. ,4> suggest nonCretroactivit(, &ere alread( taken up rather e.tensivel( earlier in this Gecision. 'r. Justice Gavide caps his paper &ith a clarion call1 =This Court must be the first to uphold the Rule of #a&.= 6e agree H &e must all follo& the rule of la&. /ut that is $ T the issue here. The issue is how should the law be interpreted and applied in this case so it can be follo&ed, so it can ruleT -t balance, the 0uestion reall( boils do&n to a choice of philosoph( and perception of ho& to interpret and appl( la&s relating to elections1 literal or liberal3 the letter or the spirit3 the naked provision or its ultimate purpose3 legal s(llogism or substantial 7ustice3 in isolation or in the conte.t of social conditions3 harshl( against or gentl( in favor of the votersE obvious choice. 9n appl(ing election la&s, it &ould be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignt( than to be right in comple. but little understood legalisms. 9ndeed, to inflict a thrice re7ected candidate upon the electorate of %orsogon &ould constitute unmitigated 7udicial t(rann( and an unacceptable assault upon this CourtEs conscience. E29# F?E 9n sum, &e rule that the citi"enship re0uirement in the #ocal Fovernment Code is to be possessed b( an elective official at the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of the term of office to &hich he has been elected. 6e further hold 2.G. $o. ,4> to be in full force and effect up to the present, not having been suspended or repealed e.pressl( nor impliedl( at an( time, and !rivaldoEs repatriation b( virtue thereof to have been properl( granted and thus valid and effective. 'oreover, b( reason of the remedial or curative nature of the la& granting him a ne& right to resume his political status and the legislative intent behind it, as &ell as his uni0ue situation of having been forced to give up his citi"enship and political aspiration as his means of escaping a regime he abhorred, his repatriation is to be given retroactive effect as of the date of his application therefor, during the pendenc( of &hich he &as

stateless, he having given E up his ?. %. nationalit(. Thus, in contemplation of la&, he possessed the vital re0uirement of !ilipino citi"enship as of the start of the term of office of governor, and should have been proclaimed instead of #ee. !urthermore, since his reac0uisition of citi"enship retroacted to -ugust ),, )**A, his registration as a voter of %orsogon is deemed to have been validated as of said date as &ell. The foregoing, of course, are precisel( consistent &ith our holding that lack of the citi"enship re0uirement is not a continuing disabilit( or dis0ualification to run for and hold public office. -nd once again, &e emphasi"e herein our previous rulings recogni"ing the ComelecEs authorit( and 7urisdiction to hear and decide petitions for annulment of proclamations. This Court has time and again liberall( and e0uitabl( construed the electoral la&s of our countr( to give fullest effect to the manifest &ill of our people, 55 for in case of doubt, political la&s must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate freel( e.pressed through the ballot. ther&ise stated, legal niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the &a( of the sovereign &ill. Consistentl(, &e have held1 =. . . (#)a&s governing election contests must be liberall( construed to the end that the &ill of the people in the choice of public officials ma( not be defeated b( mere technical ob7ections (citations omitted).=5, The la& and the courts must accord !rivaldo ever( possible protection, defense and refuge, in deference to the popular &ill. 9ndeed, this Court has repeatedl( stressed the importance of giving effect to the sovereign &ill in order to ensure the survival of our democrac(. 9n an( action involving the possibilit( of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must e.ert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that &ould give effect to the &ill of the ma7orit(, for it is merel( sound public polic( to cause elective offices to be filled b( those &ho are the choice of the ma7orit(. To successfull( challenge a &inning candidateEs 0ualifications,

the petitioner must clearl( demonstrate that the ineligibilit( is so patentl( antagonistic 5+ to constitutional and legal principles that overriding such ineligibilit( and thereb( giving effect to the apparent &ill of the people, &ould ultimatel( create greater pre7udice to the ver( democratic institutions and 7uristic traditions that our Constitution and la&s so "ealousl( protect and promote. 9n this undertaking, #ee has miserabl( failed. 9n !rivaldoEs case, it &ould have been technicall( eas( to find fault &ith his cause. The Court could have refused to grant retroactivit( to the effects of his repatriation and hold him still ineligible due to his failure to sho& his citi"enship at the time he registered as a voter before the )**> elections. r, it could have disputed the factual findings of the Comelec that he &as stateless at the time of repatriation and thus hold his conse0uent dual citi"enship as a dis0ualification =from running for an( elective local position.= /ut the real essence of 7ustice does not emanate from 0uibblings over patch&ork legal technicalit(. 9t proceeds from the spiritEs gut consciousness of the d(namic role of la& as a brick in the ultimate development of the social edifice. Thus, the Court struggled against and esche&ed the eas(, legalistic, technical and sometimes harsh anachronisms of the la& in order to evoke substantial 7ustice in the larger social conte.t consistent &ith !rivaldoEs uni0ue situation appro.imating venerabilit( in 2hilippine political life. Concededl(, he sought -merican citi"enship onl( to escape the clutches of the dictatorship. -t this stage, &e cannot seriousl( entertain an( doubt about his lo(alt( and dedication to this countr(. -t the first opportunit(, he returned to this land, and sought to serve his people once more. The people of %orsogon over&helmingl( voted for him three times. He took an oath of allegiance to this Republic ever( time he filed his certificate of candidac( and during his failed naturali"ation bid. -nd let it not be overlooked, his demonstrated tenacit( and sheer determination to reCassume his nationalit( of birth despite several legal setCbacks speak more loudl(, in spirit, in fact and in truth than an( legal technicalit(, of his consuming intention and burning desire to reCembrace his native 2hilippines even no& at the ripe old

age of +) (ears. %uch lo(alt( to and love of countr( as &ell as nobilit( of purpose cannot be lost on this Court of 7ustice and e0uit(. 'ortals of lesser mettle &ould have given up. -fter all, !rivaldo &as assured of a life of ease and plent( as a citi"en of the most po&erful countr( in the &orld. /ut he opted, na(, singleCmindedl( insisted on returning to and serving once more his struggling but beloved land of birth. He therefore deserves ever( liberal interpretation of the la& &hich can be applied in his favor. -nd in the final anal(sis, over and above !rivaldo himself, the indomitable people of %orsogon most certainl( deserve to be governed b( a leader of their over&helming choice. AHEREFORE, foregoing1 in consideration of the

()) The petition in F.R. $o. )4:,>> is hereb( G9%'9%%EG. The assailed Resolutions of the respondent Commission are -!!9R'EG. (4) The petition in F.R. $o. )4B4*> is also G9%'9%%EG for being moot and academic. 9n an( event, it has no merit. $o costs. % RGEREG.

G.R. No. L-2@;29

Au>us< 2@, 1989

IN THE 'ATTER OF THE ETITION FOR A"'ISSION AS CITI%EN OF THE HILI INES. OH HE9 HOA, petitioner appellee, vs. RE UBLIC OF THE HILI INES, oppositorC appellant. lie)er +. chave) for petitioner7appellee. Office of the "olicitor 8eneral Antonio -. Barredo, Assistant "olicitor 8eneral $elicisi6o %. %osete and "olicitor "antiago +. Eapunan for oppositor7appellant. CONCE CION, C.J.:

- decision granting his petition for naturali"ation as citi"en of the 2hilippines having been rendered on Januar( )5, )*5A, petitioner h Hek Ho& filed, on Januar( ),, )*55, a motion alleging that he had complied &ith the re0uirements of Republic -ct $o. >:B and pra(ing that he be allo&ed to take his oath of allegiance as such citi"en and issued the corresponding certificate of naturali"ation. ?pon petitionerEs testimon(, taken on !ebruar( *, )*55, the date set for the hearing of said motion, the Court of !irst 9nstance of Jamboanga del $orte issued forth&ith an order authori"ing the taking of said oath. n that same date, petitioner took it and the certificate of naturali"ation &as issued to him. The Fovernment seasonabl( gave notice of its intention to appeal from said order of !ebruar( *, )*55 and filed its record on appeal. /efore the same &as approved, it also moved to cancel petitionerEs certificate of naturali"ation, upon the ground, among others, that it &as issued and the oath taken before said order of !ebruar( *, )*55, had become final and e.ecutor(. -cting upon this motion and petitionerEs opposition thereto, the court issued, on ctober :, )*55, an order granting the motion, but, at the same time, authori"ing the taking of a ne& oath b( the petitioner and the issuance in his favor of another certificate of naturali"ation, after thirt( (:B) da(s from notice to the %olicitor Feneral. Thereafter, or on $ovember 45, )*55, the court approved the record on appeal and, once more, authori"ed the petitioner to =take a ne& or proper oath to validate the first one made on !ebruar( *, )*55.= The case is no& before us on said record on appeal filed b( the Fovernment. -t the outset, it is obvious that the oath of allegiance taken b( petitioner on $ovember 4+, )*55, and the certificate of naturali"ation issued to him in pursuance thereof, as &ell as the authorit( given therefor b( the lo&er court, are null and void. 9ndeed, the order of !ebruar( *, had not H and up to the present has not H become final and e.ecutor( in vie& of the appeal dul( taken b( the Fovernment. 6hat is more, petitionerEs second oath &as taken, not onl( after the filing of the notice of appeal ) and the submission of the record on

appeal, but also after the approval thereof. 9n other &ords, the lo&er court had alread( lost its 7urisdiction over the case. 4 -gain, petitionerEs net income in )*5B and )*5) &as 2:,*A>.5> and 2>,)B>.,*, respectivel(, or from about 2::B to 2A4> a month. His income ta. return for )*54, filed subse0uentl( to the institution of this case, sho&ed a net income of 25,A+>.>B for that (ear, or about 2>AB a month. Considering that petitioner has a &ife and three (:) children, one of them of school age, at the time of the filing of his application for naturali"ation, his aforementioned income is not a lucrative one. 9ndeed, it has been held that the follo&ing incomes are not lucrative, from the vie&point of our naturali"ation la&s, namel(1 ()) 2A,4BB : or 2>,BBB a (ear A for one married, &ith five (>) children3 > (4) 25,BBB a (ear for one married, &ith t&o (4) minor children3 > and (:) 25,BBB 5 or 25,:BB a (ear , for one married, &ith onl( one ()) child. #astl(, it is conceded that petitioner has not re0uired from the 'inister of the 9nterior of $ationalist China the permission re0uired b( the la&s thereof for a valid renunciation of his Chinese citi"enship. 9n 8o A. Leng v. %epu*lic, + a decision granting the application for naturali"ation of a Chinese national &as reversed b( this Court, upon the ground, among others, of =his failure to secure= the aforementioned permission. 9t is argued that the same is not re0uired b( our la&s and that the naturali"ation of an alien, as a citi"en of the 2hilippines, is governed e.clusivel( b( such la&s and cannot be controlled b( an( foreign la&. %ection )4 of Common&ealth -ct $o. A,: provides, ho&ever, that before the naturali"ation certificate is issued, the petitioner shall =solemnl( s&ear,= inter alia, that he renounces =absolutel( and forever all allegiance and fidelit( to an( foreign prince, potentate= and particularl( to the state =of &hich= he is =a sub7ect or citi"en.= The obvious purpose of this re0uirement is to divest him of his former nationalit(, before ac0uiring 2hilippine citi"enship, because, other&ise, he &ould have t&o nationalities and o&e allegiance to t&o (4) distinct

sovereignties, &hich our la&s do not permit, e.cept that, pursuant to Republic -ct $o. 45:*, =the ac0uisition of citi"enship b( a naturalCborn !ilipino citi"en from one of the 9berian and an( friendl( democratic 9beroC -merican countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his 2hilippine citi"enship, if the la& of that countr( grants the same privilege to its citi"ens and such had been agreed upon b( treat( bet&een the 2hilippines and the foreign countr( from &hich citi"enship is ac0uired.= The 0uestion of ho& a Chinese citi"en ma( strip himself of that status is necessaril( governed H pursuant to -rticles )> and )5 of our Civil Code H b( the la&s of China, not b( those of the 2hilippines. * -s a conse0uence, a Chinese national cannot be naturali"ed as a citi"en of the 2hilippines, unless he has complied &ith the la&s of $ationalist China re0uiring previous permission of its 'inister of the 9nterior for the renunciation of nationalit(. The vie& to the contrar(, adhered to in -arado v. %epu*lic, )B Chausinte: v. %epu*lic, )) and Li6 "o v. %epu*lic )4 has been superseded b( our ruling in the subse0uent case of 8o A. Leng v. %epu*lic ): &hich &e hereb( reiterate. 6HERE! RE, the order appealed from is reversed, and the oath of allegiance taken, on $ovember 4+, )*55, b( petitioner h Hek Ho&, as &ell as the certificate of naturali"ation issued in pursuance thereto, are hereb( declared null and void, &ith costs against said petitioner, &ho is, moreover, directed to surrender the aforementioned certificate of naturali"ation to the Clerk of the Court of !irst 9nstance of Jamboanga del $orte, &ithin ten ()B) da(s after this decision shall have become final. 9t is so ordered.

vs. STEAART E""IE TAIT, defendantCappellee. %a6ire) and Ortigas for appellants. 8i**s, +c&onough and O)aeta for appellee. "IA%, J.: 2laintiffs appeal from a 7udgment of the Court of !irst 9nstance of 'anila dismissing the case instituted b( them, thereb( overruling their complaint, and sentencing them to pa( the costs. The( no& contend in their brief that1 9. The lo&er court erred in not admitting E.hibits G, E, ! and H to 'C ) of plaintiffs. 99. The lo&er court erred in declaring that it &as indispensable for the defendant to be served &ith summons in Hanoi. 999. The lo&er court erred in declaring that service b( publication, &ith personal notice b( the !rench Consul in 'anila, &as not sufficient. 98. The lo&er court erred in declaring that the Court of Hanoi had no 7urisdiction over the person of the defendant. 8. The lo&er court erred in dismissing this case, instead of sentencing the defendant to pa( to the plaintiffs the amounts claimed in the complaint as ad7udged b( the Court of Hanoi3 and 89. The lo&er court erred in den(ing the motion for ne& trial on the ground that the decision is contrar( to the la& and the evidence. /riefl( stated, the pertinent facts of the case, that &e glean from the records, are as follo&s1 The appellant Emilie Elmira Renee /oudard, in her capacit( as &ido& of 'arie Theodore Jerome /oudard and as guardian of her coappellants, her children born during her marriage &ith the deceased, obtained a

G.R. No. L-;)193

AC+-l ), 1939

E'ILIE EL'IRA RENEE BOU"AR", RAY'ON" ANTONIN BOU"AR", GINETTE ROSE A"ELAI"E BOU"AR" (.6 'ONI$UE !ICTOIRE BOU"AR", plaintiffsC appellants,

7udgment in their favor from the civil division of the Court of !irst 9nstance of Hanoi, !rench 9ndoCChina, on June 4,, )*:A, for the sum of AB,BBB piastras, e0uivalent, according to the rate of e.change at the time of the rendition of the 7udgment, to 2>5,*B>.,,, 2hilippine currenc(, plus interest the amount or rate of &hich is not given. The 7udgment &as rendered against %te&art Eddie Tait &ho had been declared in default for his failure to appear at the trial before said court. -ppellantsE action, b( virtue of &hich the( obtained the foregoing 7udgment, &as based on the fact that 'arie Theodore Jerome /oudard, &ho &as an emplo(ee of %te&art Eddie Tait, &as killed in Hanoi b( other emplo(ees of said Tait, although =outside of the fulfillment of a dut(=, according to the English translation of a certified cop( of the decision in !rench, presented b( the appellants. The dismissal of appellantsE complaint b( the lo&er court &as based principall( on the lack of 7urisdiction of the Court of Hanoi to render the 7udgment in 0uestion, for the e.ecution of &hich this action &as instituted in this 7urisdiction. The lack of 7urisdiction &as discovered in the decision itself of the Court of Hanoi &hich states that the appellee &as not a resident of, nor had a kno&n domicile in, that countr(. The evidence adduced at the trial conclusivel( proves that neither the appellee nor his agent or emplo(ees &ere ever in Hanoi, !rench 9ndoCChina3 and that the deceased 'arie Theodore Jerome /oudard had never, at an( time, been his emplo(ee. The appelleeEs first intimation of his having been sued and sentenced to pa( a huge sum b( the civil division of the Court of !irst 9nstance of Hanoi &as &hen he &as served &ith summons in the present case. 2assing no& to the consideration of the errors assigned b( the appellants, &e must sa( that it &as reall( unnecessar( for the lo&er court to admit E.hibit G, E, ! and H to 'C), nor can these e.hibits be admitted as evidence, for, as to the first point, the appellants failed to sho& that the proceedings against the appellee in the Court of Hanoi &ere in accordance &ith the la&s of !rance then in

force3 and as to the second point, it appears that said documents are not of the nature mentioned in sections :BA and :B> of -ct $o. )*B. The( are not copies of the 7udicial record of the proceedings against the appellee in the Court of Hanoi, dul( certified b( the proper authorities there, &hose signatures should be authenticated b( the Consul or some consular agent of the ?nited %tates in said countr(. The appellants argue that the papers are the original documents and that the Honorable !rench Consul in the 2hilippines had confirmed this fact. %uch argument is not sufficient to authori"e a deviation from a rule established and sanctioned b( la&. To compl( &ith the rule, the best evidence of foreign 7udicial proceedings is a certified cop( of the same &ith all the formalities re0uired in said sections :BA and :B> for onl( thus can one be absolutel( sure of the authenticit( of the record. n the other hand said e.hibits or documents, if admitted, &ould onl( corroborate and strengthen the evidence of the appellee &hich in itself is convincing, and the conclusion of the lo&er court that the appellee is not liable for the amount to &hich he &as sentenced, as alleged, for he &as not dul( tried or even summoned in conformit( &ith the la&. 9t is said that the !rench la& regarding summons, according to its English translation presented b( the appellants, is of the follo&ing tenor1 =%EC. 5* (par. +). Those &ho have no kno&n residence in !rance, in the place of their present residence1 if the place is unkno&n, the &rit shall be posted at the main door of the hall of the court &here the complaint has been filed3 a second cop( shall be given to the -ttorne(CFeneral of the Republic &ho shall visae the original.= /ut then, E.hibits E, EC), ! and !C) sho& that the summons alleged to have been addressed to the appellee, &as delivered in 'anila on %eptember )+, )*::, to J. '. %hot&ell, a representative or agent of Churchill Q Tait 9nc., &hich is an entit( entirel( different from the appellee. 'oreover, the evidence of record sho&s that the appellee &as not in Hanoi during the time mentioned in the complaint of the appellants, nor &ere his emplo(ees or representatives. The rule in matters of this nature is that

7udicial proceedings in a foreign countr(, regarding pa(ment of mone(, are onl( effective against a part( if summons is dul( served on him &ithin such foreign countr( before the proceedings. The fundamental rule is that 7urisdiction in persona6 over nonresidents, so as to sustain a mone( 7udgment, must be based upon personal service &ithin the state &hich renders the 7udgment. (2enno(er vs. $eff, *> ?. %., ,)A3 4A #a&. ed., >5>3 T&ining vs. $e& Jers(, 4)) ?. %., ,+3 4* %. Ct., )A3 >: #a&. ed., *,3 Continental $ational /ank of /oston vs. Thurber, )A: $. @., 5A+3 :, $. E., +4+.) The process of a court of one state cannot run into another and summon a part( there domiciled to respond to proceedings against him. (Hess vs. 2a&loski, 4,A ?. %., :>4, :>>3 A, %. Ct., 5:4, 5:: ;,) #a&. ed., )B*<.) $otice sent outside the state to a nonresident is unavailing to give 7urisdiction in an action against him personall( for mone( recover(. (2enno(er vs. $eff, *> ?. %., ,A) ;4A #a&. ed., >5><.) There must be actual service &ithin the %tate of notice upon him or upon some one authori"ed to accept service for him. (Folde( vs. 'orning $e&s, )>5 ?. %., >)+ ;)> %. Ct., >>*3 :* #a&. ed., >),<.) personal 7udgment rendered against a nonresident, &ho has neither been served &ith process nor appeared in the suit, is &ithout validit(. ('cGonald vs. 'abee, 4A: ?. %., *B ;:, %. Ct., :A:3 5) #a&, ed., 5B+3 #. R. -. )*),!, A+><.) The mere transaction of business in a state b( nonresident natural persons does not impl( consent to be bound b( the process of its courts. (!le.ner vs. !arson, 4A+ ?. %., 4+* ;:* %. Ct., *,3 5: #a&. ed., 4>B<.)= (Cited in %kandinaviska Franit -ktiebolaget vs. 6eiss, 4:A $. @. %., 4B4, 4B5, 4B,.)

The process of a court has no e.traterritorial effect, and no 7urisdiction is ac0uired over the person of the defendant b( serving him be(ond the boundaries of the state. $or has a 7udgment of a court of a foreign countr( against a resident of his countr( having no propert( in such foreign countr( based on process served here, an( effect here against either the defendant personall( or his propert( situated here. (> R. C. #., *)4.) 2rocess issuing from the courts of one state or countr( cannot run into another, and although a nonresident defendant ma( have been personall( served &ith such process in the state or countr( of his domicile, it &ill not give such 7urisdiction as to authori"e a personal 7udgment against him. (4: C(c., 5++.) 9t can not be said that the decision rendered b( the Court of Hanoi should be conclusive to such an e.tent that it cannot be contested, for it merel( constitutes, from the vie&point of our la&s, pri6a facie evidence of the 7ustness of appellantsE claim, and, as such, naturall( admits proof to the contrar(. This is precisel( the provision of section :)) of -ct $o. )*B, as interpreted in the case of 9ngenohl vs. 6alter E. lsen Q Co. (A, 2hil., )+*)1B The effect of a 7udgment of an( other tribunal of a foreign countr(, having 7urisdiction to pronounce the 7udgment, is as follo&s1 ). 9n case of a 7udgment against a specific thing, the 7udgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing3 4. 9n case of a 7udgment against a person, the 7udgment is presumptive evidence of a right as bet&een the parties and their successors in interest b( a subse0uent title3 but the 7udgment ma( be repelled b( evidence of a &ant of 7urisdiction, &ant of notice to the part(, collusion, fraud, or clear

mistake of la& or fact. (%ec. :)) of -ct $o. )*B.) 9n vie& of the foregoing considerations, conclusion is that &e find no merit in errors assigned to the lo&er court and appealed 7udgment is in accordance &ith la&. our the the the

6herefore, the 7udgment is affirmed, &ith costs against the appellants. %o ordered.

6 "n G.R. $o. 9)1%(, Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, 1)5 #CRA !5& 7June !(, 1%9%8, -e #upreme Cour , b, reason of suc- na urali/a ion, declared Frivaldo 2no a ci i/en of -e P-ilippines and -erefore D"#:;A1"F"ED from serving as Governor of -e Province of #orsogon.2 <n Februar, !9, 1%%!, -e Regional 0rial Cour of Manila gran ed -e pe i ion for na urali/a ion of Frivaldo. 4o3ever, -e #upreme Cour in G.R. $o. 1+56&5, Republic of the Philippines vs. De la Rosa, et al, !(! #CRA )9& 7June 6,1%%58, over urned -is gran , and Frivaldo 3as 2declared no a ci i/en of -e P-ilippines2 and ordered o vaca e -is office. <n -e basis of -is la er #upreme Cour ruling, -e Comelec dis=ualified Frivaldo in #PA $o. %&'+!9. ) #igned b, C-airman .ernardo P. Pardo and -e si> incumben commissioners, namel,, Regalado E. Maambong, Remedios A. #ala/ar'Femando, Manolo .. Gorospe, Graduacion A. Re,es'Claravall, Julio F. Desami o and 0eresi a D,'1iaco Flores* Rollo, pp. &6'&). 9. Rollo, p. 6+. % Rollo, pp. 61'6). 1+ Rollo, pp. 96'9). 0-e Comelec considered -e vo es cas for Frivaldo as 2s ra, vo es,2 and -us 1ee 3as -eld as -aving garnered -e 2-ig-es number of vo es.2 11 Rollo, pp. 99'%). 0-is is -e forerunner of -e presen case. 1! !11 #CRA !%) 7Jul, (, 1%%!8 and 1)6 #CRA 1 7Augus 1, 1%9%8. 1( Rollo, pp. 11+'1!9. 15 Rollo, pp. 1&%'1)+. 1& Rollo, pp. 16'1)* pe i ion, pp. 15'1&. 16 Rollo, pp. 1+'1&. 0-is is -e same resolu ion referred o in foo no e no. &. 1) Rollo, pp. 16'1). 0-is is -e same resolu ion referred o in foo no e no. ). 19 Rollo, pp. 19'!1. 0-is is signed also b, -e C-airman and -e si> o -er Comelec Commissioners 1% Republic Ac $o. )16+. !+ #ee foo no e no. 6, supra. !1 "n debun?ing Frivaldo@s claim of ci i/ens-ip, -is Cour in G.R. $o. 9)1%(, supra, p. !&5, observed -a 27i8f -e 7Frivaldo8 reall, 3an ed o disavo3 -is American ci i/ens-ip and reac=uire P-ilippine ci i/ens-ip, pe i ioner s-ould -ave done so in accordance 3i - -e la3s of our coun r,. ;nder C.A. $o. 6( as amended b, C.A. $o. 5)( and P.D. )!&, P-ilippine ci i/ens-ip ma, be reac=uired b, direc ac of Congress, b, na urali/a ion, or b, repa ria ion.2 !! upra, p. )%5.

!( Pe i ion, p. !)* Rollo, p. !%. !5 0-e full e> of said memorandum reads as follo3sA !"E"#R$%D&" '# ( 'he olicitor General 'he &ndersecretar) of Forei*n $ffairs 'he Director+General %ational ,ntelli*ence Coordinatin* $*enc) 'he previous administration-s practice of *rantin* citi.enship b) Presidential Decree or an) other e/ecutive issuance, and the derivative administrative authorit) thereof, poses a serious and contentious issue of polic) 0hich the present *overnment, in the e/ercise of prudence and sound discretion, should best leave to the 1ud*ment of the first Con*ress under the 2345 Constitution. ,n vie0 of the fore*oin*, )ou as Chairman and members of the pecial Committee on %aturali.ation, are hereb) directed to cease and desist from underta6in* an) and all proceedin*s 0ithin )our functional area of responsibilit), as defined in Letter of ,nstructions %o. 758 dated $pril 22, 2359, as amended, Presidential Decree %o. 4:; dated December :, 2359, as amended, and Presidential Decree %o. 2:53 dated "a) 25, 2354, relative to the *rant of citi.enship under the said la0s, and an) other related la0s, orders, issuances and rules and re*ulations. < *d.= Cora.on C. $>uino Manila, Marc- !), 1%9). 2 !& Ar . ), Civil Code of -e P-ilippines. !6 Cf. '), et al. vs. 'rampe, et al, G.R. $o. 11)&)) 7December 1, 1%%&8. !) Pe i ion, p. !9* Rollo p. (+. !9 0-e aforesaid Manifes a ion reads as follo3sA !"$%,FE '$',#% 0-e #olici or General, as C-airman of -e #pecial Commi ee on $a urali/a ion, -ereb, manifes s -a -e follo3ing persons -ave been repa ria ed b, vir ue of Presiden ial Decree $o. )!&, since June 9, 1%%&A 1. Juan Gallanosa Frivaldo R'+++%++ !. Manuel Re,es #anc-e/ %+1 (. Ma. $ell, Dessalla 0, %+! 5. 0err, 4errera and

An onio C-ing %+( &. Rober o #alas .enedic o %+5 6. Bin -rop #an os 1i3ag %+& ). #amuel M. .u,co %+6 9. Joseli o 4olgan/a Rui/ %+) %. #amuel Cillanueva %+9 1+. Juan 1eonardo Collas, Jr. %+% 11. Felicilda < illa #acnanas'C-ua %1+D !% 0-e e> of P.D. )!& is reproduced belo3A !PRE ,DE%',$L DECREE %o. 579 PR#?,D,%G F#R REP$'R,$',#% #F F,L,P,%# @#"E% @A# A$D L# ' 'AE,R PA,L,PP,%E C,',BE% A,P CD "$RR,$GE '# $L,E% $%D #F %$'&R$L C#R% F,L,P,%# . @AERE$ , there are man) Filipino 0omen 0ho had lost their Philippine citi.enship b) marria*e to aliens; @AERE$ , 0hile the ne0 Constitution allo0s a Filipino 0oman 0ho marries an alien to retain her Philippine citi.enship unless b) her act or omission, she is deemed under the la0 to have renounced her Philippine citi.enship, such provision of the ne0 Constitution does not appl) to Filipino 0omen 0ho had married aliens before said constitution too6 effect; @AERE$ , the e/istin* la0 <C.$. %o. ;:, as amended= allo0s the repatriation of Filipino 0omen 0ho lost their citi.enship b) reason of their marria*e to aliens onl) after the death of their husbands or the termination of their marital status; and @AERE$ , there are natural born Filipinos 0ho have lost their Philippine citi.enship but no0 desire to re+ac>uire Philippine citi.enship; $o3, 04EREF<RE, ", FERD"$A$D E. MARC<#, Presiden of -e P-ilippines, b, vir ue of -e po3ers in me ves ed b, -e Cons i u ion, do -ereb, decree and order -a A 718 Filipino 3omen 3-o los -eir P-ilippine ci i/ens-ip b, marriage o aliens* and 7!8 na ural born Filipinos 3-o -ave los -eir P-ilippine ci i/ens-ip ma, reac=uire P-ilippine ci i/ens-ip -roug- repa ria ion b, appl,ing 3i - -e #pecial Commi ee on $a urali/a ion crea ed b, 1e er of "ns ruc ions $o. !)+, and, if -eir applica ions are approved, a?ing -e necessar, oa - of allegiance o -e Republic of -e P-ilippines, af er 3-ic- -e, s-all be deemed o -ave reac=uired P-ilippine ci i/ens-ip. 0-e Commission on "mmigra ion and Depor a ion s-all -ereupon cancel -eir cer ifica e of regis ra ion.

'he aforesaid pecial Committee is hereb) authori.ed to promul*ate rules and re*ulations and prescribe the appropriate forms and the re>uired fees for the effective implementation of this Decree. 'his Decree shall ta6e effect immediatel). Done in the Cit) of "anila, this 9th da) of June, in the )ear of #ur Lord, nineteen hundred and sevent)+five. ! (+ #ee foo no e no. 6, supra (1 Cf. Labo, Jr. vs. Comelec, !11 #CRA !%) 7Jul, (, 1%%!8. (! 20-e erm of office of all local elec ive officials elec ed af er -e effec ivi , of -is Code s-all be -ree 7(8 ,ears, s ar ing from noon of June (+, 1%%! or suc- da ( (5
: : : : : A A A A A A A A A A >

> > > > > > > > > 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5