G.R. No.

161434 March 3, 2004

MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. vs.COMELEC, FPJ and VICTORINO X. FORNIER,

G.R. No. 161634 March 3, 2004
ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ vs.FPJ

G. R. No. 161824 March 3, 2004
VICTORINO X. FORNIER, vs. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and FPJ

Facts:
Petitioners sought for respondent Poes disqualification in the presidential elections for having allegedly
misrepresented material facts in his (Poes) certificate of candidacy by claiming that he is a natural
Filipino citizen despite his parents both being foreigners. Comelec dismissed the petition, holding that
Poe was a Filipino Citizen. Petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Comelec, contending that only the
Supreme Court may resolve the basic issue on the case under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the
1987 Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not it is the Supreme Court which had jurisdiction.
Whether or not Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Poe was a Filipino citizen.
Ruling:
1.) The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction on questions regarding qualification of a candidate for the
presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.
"Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal" in connection with Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987
Constitution, refers to contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or
"Vice-President", of the Philippines which the Supreme Court may take cognizance, and not of
"candidates" for President or Vice-President before the elections.
2.) Comelec committed no grave abuse of discretion in holding Poe as a Filipino Citizen.

The 1935 Constitution on Citizenship, the prevailing fundamental law on respondents birth, provided
that among the citizens of the Philippines are "those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines."


Tracing respondents paternal lineage, his grandfather Lorenzo, as evidenced by the latters death
certificate was identified as a Filipino Citizen. His citizenship was also drawn from the presumption that
having died in 1954 at the age of 84, Lorenzo would have been born in 1980. In the absence of any other
evidence, Lorenzos place of residence upon his death in 1954 was presumed to be the place of
residence prior his death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse
Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. Being so, Lorenzos citizenship would have
extended to his son, Allan---respondents father.

Respondent, having been acknowledged as Allans son to Bessie, though an American citizen, was a
Filipino citizen by virtue of paternal filiation as evidenced by the respondents birth certificate. The 1935
Constitution on citizenship did not make a distinction on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, thus,
the allegation of bigamous marriage and the allegation that respondent was born only before the
assailed marriage had no bearing on respondents citizenship in view of the established paternal filiation
evidenced by the public documents presented.

But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to
hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of
candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR. VICENTE D CHING, digested

Posted by Pius Morados on November 9, 2011
Bar Matter. No. 914, October 1, 1999 (Constitutional Law Citizenship)

FACTS: Petitioner, who resided in the Philippines since his birth during the 1935 Constitution, is a
legitimate son of a Filipina married to a Chinese citizen. Subsequently, petitioner elected Philippine
citizenship 14 years after he reached the age of majority. OSG recommends the relaxation of the
standing rule on the construction of the phrase reasonable period and the allowance of the petitioner
to elect Philippine citizenship due to circumstances like petitioner having lived in the Philippines all his
life and his consistent belief that he is a Filipino.

ISSUE: Whether or not a legitimate child under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien
father validly elect Philippine citizenship 14 years after he has reached the age of majority.

HELD: No, despite the special circumstances, Petitioner failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The
span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally expressed his
intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the contemplation of the requirement
upon reaching the age of majority. In addition, there was no reason why he delayed his election of
Philippine citizenship.