POE- LLAMANZARES VS.

COMELEC,
GR No. 221697; 8 March 2016
Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares
was found abandoned as a newborn
infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo
by a certain Edgardo Militar (Edgardo)
on 3 September 1968.
When petitioner was five (5) years old,
celebrity spouses Ronald Allan Kelley
Poe (a.k.a. Fenando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa
Sonora Poe (a.k.a. Susan Roces) filed a
petition for her adoption with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan
City. On 13 May 1974, the trial court
granted their petition and ordered that
petitioner's name be changed from
"Mary
Grace
Natividad
Contreras
Militar" to "Mary Grace Natividad
Sonora Poe."
Having reached the age of eighteen ( 18)
years in 1986, petitioner registered as a
voter with the local COMELEC Office in
San Juan City. On 13 December 1986,
she received her COMELEC Voter's
Identification Card for Precinct No. 196
in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila.
she was issued a PH Passport on 4 April
1988
She left for the US in 1988 and married
in Teodoro Llamanzares, a US Citizen in
1991. She became a naturalized US
Citizen on October 18, 2001
She returned to the PH on April 2004 to
support her father's candidacy and
returned to the US in July of the same
year ; She returned to the PH on
December 2004 after having learned of
her father's medical condition and stayed
up to Feb 2005 to take care of her
father's funeral arrangement and estate
settlement.
She and her husband decided to move
and reside permanently in the PH in the
first quarter of 2005, and began to
prepare for their resettlement, thus, she
came home to the PH on 24 May 2005.
She and her children briefly stayed at
her mother's house until she and her
husband purchased a condominium in
San Juan City in the 2nd half of 2005. In
early 2006, established their family home
in Corinthian Hills QC.
She took her oath of Allegiance to the PH
in 7 July 2006 under RA 9225. She
registered as a voter and acquired a PH
passport
She was appointed chair of the MTRCB in
2010, and executed an affidavit of
renunciation of allegiance to the US and
Renunciation of American Citizenship
She filed for candidacy for the 2013
elections on 2 October 2012. She
obtained the highest number of votes
and was proclaimend senator in 16 May

2013 indicating her residence in the PH

as 6 years and 6 months
She filed for candidacy for presidency on
15
October
2015
indicating
her
residence in the PH as 10 years and 11
months.
Several petitions were filed with the
COMELEC contesting the COC of Grace
Poe and praying that her COC be
cancelled. The COMELEC rendered
decisions in favor of the Petitioners and
denied due course and cancelled her
COC.
ISSUES/RULING
1. W/N The COMELEC has jurisdiction
to deny due course the COC of Poe on
the
ground
of
Material
Misrepresentation
- No. The issue before the COMELEC is
whether or not the COC of petitioner
should be denied due course or cancelled
"on the exclusive ground" that she made
in the certificate a false material
representation. The exclusivity of the
ground should hedge in the discretion of
the COMELEC and restrain it from going
into the issue of the qualifications of the
candidate for the position, if, as in this
case, such issue is yet undecided or
undetermined by the proper authority.
The COMELEC cannot itself, in the same
cancellation case, decide the qualification
or lack thereof of the candidate.
Insofar as the qualification of a candidate
is concerned, Rule 25 and Rule 23 are
flipsides of one to the other. Both do not
allow, are not authorizations, are not
vestment
of
jurisdiction,
for
the
COMELEC to determine the qualification
of a candidate. The facts of qualification
must beforehand be established in a prior
proceeding before an authority properly
vested with jurisdiction. The prior
determination of qualification may be by
statute, by executive order or by a
judgment of a competent court or
tribunal.
2. On Citizenship
Poe is a natural born Filipino Citizen.
Based on the following grounds:
Domestic and international laws on
foundlings - Under these laws, a
foundling enjoys the presumption of being
natural born. In addition, these laws do
not
permit
discrimination
against
foundlings.
Poe's repatriation - Citing the case of
Bengzon
vs
HRET,
the
SC
said
"repatriation results in the recovery of the
original nationality."

There are only two types of citizens under

the 1987 Constitution, the SC noted:
natural-born and naturalized. "There is no
third category for repatriated citizens."
Poe's reference to adoptive parents as
birth parents - The SC said the Domestic
Adoption Act of 1998 allows Poe to state
that her adoptive parents are her birth
parents, since that is what would be
stated in her birth certificate.
3. On Residence
When petitioner immigrated to the U.S. in
1991, she lost her original domicile,
which is the Philippines. There are three
requisites to acquire a new domicile: 1.
Residence or bodily presence in a new
locality; 2. an intention to remain there;

and 3. an intention to abandon the old

domicile. To successfully effect a change
of domicile, one must demonstrate an
actual removal or an actual change of
domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence
and establishing a new one and definite
acts which correspond with the purpose.
In other words, there must basically be
animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at
the domicile of choice must be for an
indefinite period of time; the change of
residence must be voluntary; and the
residence at the place chosen for the new
domicile must be actual.

IMPROPERLY ACCUMULATED EARNINGS TAX

Basis: Sec. 29, NIRC- imposes Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax (IAET) of
10% on corporations for each taxable year on the improperly accumulated taxable
income of such corporation.
Nature: A penalty tax upon a corporate taxpayer for accumulating so much net
income tax beyond the reasonable needs of the business. The Corporation Code of
the Philippines prohibits a stock corporation to maintain retained earnings of more
than 100% of its paid-up capitalization.
Applicability: every corporation which is formed or availed of for the purpose of
avoiding the imposition of income tax on the income received by shareholders of
the corporation, by permitting its earnings or profits to accumulate, instead of
being divided or distributed.
Exceptions: The IAET does not apply to (a) Publicly held corporations, (b) Banks
and other nonbank financial intermediaries, and (c) Insurance companies. RR 22001 likewise included taxable partnerships, general professional partnerships,
nontaxable joint ventures and enterprises duly registered under special economic
zones as exempt from the coverage of IAET.
If the failure to pay dividends is due to some other causes, such as the use of
undistributed earnings and profits for the reasonable needs of the business, such
purpose would not generally make the accumulated or undistributed earnings
subject to IAET. However, if there is a determination that a corporation has
accumulated income beyond the reasonable needs of the business, the 10-percent
improperly accumulated earnings tax shall be imposed.
Under Section 3 of RR 2-2001, the following constitute accumulation of earnings
for the reasonable needs of the business:
a) Allowance for the increase in the accumulation of earnings up to 100 percent of
the paid-up capital of the corporation as of Balance Sheet date, inclusive of
accumulations taken from other years;
b) Earnings reserved for definite corporate expansion projects or programs
requiring considerable capital expenditure as approved by the Board of Directors
or equivalent body;
c) Earnings reserved for building, plants or equipment acquisition as approved by
the Board of Directors or equivalent body;
d) Earnings reserved for compliance with any loan covenant or pre-existing
obligation established under a legitimate business agreement;

e) Earnings required by law or applicable regulations to be retained by the

corporation or in respect of which there is legal prohibition against its distribution;
f) In the case of subsidiaries of foreign corporations in the Philippines, all
undistributed earnings intended or reserved for investments within the Philippines
as can be proven by corporate records and/or relevant documentary evidence.
Thus, if a company can justify the accumulation of its earnings as within the
reasonable needs of business, it is exempt from the imposition of IAET.
Source: http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/improperly-accumulated-earnings-tax/
http://taxacctgcenter.org/overview-of-improperly-accumulated-earnings-tax-in-thephilippines/