Labo, Jr.

vs COMELEC, [176 SCRA 1; GR 86564, August 1, 1989]

(Municipal Corporation, Qualification, 2nd Highest Number of Votes)
Facts: Petitioner and Respondent were candidates for the office of the Mayor of Baguio
City during Elections. Having garnered the highest number of votes, Petitioner was
elected and proclaimed winner while Respondent garnered the second highest number
of votes. Subsequently Respondent filed a petition for quo warranto contesting the
election of the Petitioner on the ground that the latter is a naturalized Australian citizen
and was divested of his Philippine citizenship having sworn allegiance to the Queen of
Australia. Petitioner opposes to the contrary.
Section 42 of the Local Government Code provides for the qualifications that an elective
official must be a citizen of the Philippines.
From the evidence adduced, it was found out that citizenship requirements were not
possessed by the petitioner during elections. He was disqualified from running as mayor
and, although elected, is not now qualified to serve as such.
Issue: WON private respondent, having garnered the 2nd highest number of votes, can
replace the petitioner as mayor.
Held: No. The simple reason is that he obtained only the second highest number of
votes in the election, he was obviously not the choice of the people of Baguio City.
The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared
to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not
necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to
be declared the winner of the elective office.

Note:
Dual citizenship is not a bar in running for elections, dual allegiance is.
Mere repatriation is not enough to run for elections.
A written certification of an oath of allegiance to the Philippines must be attached
together with the COC.
1. Repatriation Is Recovery of Original Citizenship
First, repatriation is simply the recovery of original citizenship. Under Section 1 of RA
2630, a person who ha[s] lost his citizenship may reacquire it by taking an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.


Valles vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000

Principle of jus sanguinis
How Philippine citizenship is acquired
Effect of filing certificate of candidacy: express renunciation of other citizenship

FACTS:

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and
an Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle
in the Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then participated in
the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In the May
1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles filed a petition for her disqualification as
candidate on the ground that she is anAustralian.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino



HELD:

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder,
a child follows the nationality orcitizenship of the parents regardless of the place of
his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality
or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect
and at that time, what served as theConstitution of the Philippines were the principal
organic acts by which the United States governed the country. These were the
Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of Aug. 29, 1916, also
known as the Jones Law.

Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on
April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine
citizens. Private respondents father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on Jan. 5, 1879 in
Daet, Camarines Norte.... Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law,
Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws,
which were the laws in force at the time of her birth, Telesforos daughter, herein private
respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.

The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established the principle of
jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, xxx

So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood
relationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Thus,
the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been
born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her
losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most,
private respondent can also claimAustralian citizenship resulting to her possession of
dual citizenship.



















FRIVALDO VS. COMELEC (1996)
G.R. No. 120295, June 28 1996, 257 SCRA 727

FACTS:
Juan G. Frivaldo ran for Governor of Sorsogon again and won. Raul R. Lee questioned
his citizenship. He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725
and was able to take his oath ofallegiance as a Philippine citizen.

However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the Court had already ruled based on
his previous attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship, and had proclaimed
Lee, who got the second highest number of votes, as the newly elect Governor of
Sorsogon.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Frivaldos repatriation was valid.

HELD:
The Court ruled his repatriation was valid and legal and because of the curative nature
of Presidential Decree No. 725, his repatriation retroacted to the date of the filing of his
application to run for governor. The steps to reacquire Philippine Citizenship by
repatriation under Presidential Decree No. 725 are: (1) filing the application; (2) action
by the committee; and (3) taking of the oath of allegiance if the application is approved.
It is only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the applicant is deemed ipso jure to
havereacquired Philippine citizenship. If the decree had intended the oath taking to
retroact to the date of the filing of the application, then it should not have explicitly
provided otherwise. He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor of Sorsogon.








Torayno v. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 137329 (August 9, 2000)
FACTS: This case involves a petition for quo warranto filed against the respondent on
the ground that he was not able to fulfill the requirement of residency of 1-yr in Cagayan
de Oro City when he ran for mayor. Respondent previously served as governor of
Misamis Oriental for 3 consecutive terms before he registered as a voter in Cagayan de
Oro City and subsequently ran for mayor.

HELD: Respondent was able to fulfill the residency requirement needed for him to
qualify as a mayoralty candidate. He bought a house in Cagayan de Oro City in 1973.
He actually resided there before he registered as a voter in that city in 1997.




















Coquilla vs COMELEC [385 SCRA 607; GR 151914, September 17, 2002]
(Municipal Corporation, Qualifications Residence)

Facts: Petitioner Coquilla was born of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar, where
he grew up and resided.
In 1965, he joined the US Navy and subsequently naturalized as a US citizen.
On October 15, 1998, petitioner came to the Philippines and took out a residence
certificate, albeit continued making several trips to the US.
On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines subsequently
after his application for repatriation was approved.
On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter of Butunga, Oras, Eastern
Samar.
On February 27, 2001, he filed his COC stating therein that he has been a resident of
Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years.
On March 5, 2001, respondent incumbent mayor of Oras who was running for re-
election, sought the cancellation of petitioners COC on the ground that the latter had
resided in Oras for only about 6 months since when he took his oath as a citizen of the
Philippines.
On May 14, 2001, petitioner garnered the highest number of votes and was
subsequently proclaimed mayor of Oras.
Issue: WON petitioner satisfied the residency requirement for the position of mayor.

Held: No. Par. 39, Chapter 1, Title 2 of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) provides
that an elective official must be a resident therein (barangay, municipality, city or
province) for at least 1 year immediately preceeding the day of the election
The term residence is to be understood not in its common acceptation as referring to
dwelling or habitation, but rather to domicile or legal residence, that is, the place
where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter
where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain
(animus manendi). A domicile of origin is acquired by every person at birth. It is usually
the place where the childs parents reside and continues until the same is abandoned
by acquisition of a new domicile (domicile of choice).
In the case at bar, petitioner lost his domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a US citizen
after enlisting in the US Navy in 1965. From then on and until November 10, 2000,
when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, he was an alien.


COQUILLA VS COMELEC

G.R. No. 151914, 31 July 2002 [Citizenship; Reacquisition]

FACTS:
Coquilla was born on 1938 of Filipino parents in Oras, Eastern Samar. He grew up and
resided there until 1965, when he was subsequently naturalized as a U.S. citizen after
joining the US Navy. In 1998, he came to the Philippines and took out a residence
certificate, although he continued making several trips to the United States.

Coquilla eventually applied for repatriation under R.A. No. 8171 which was approved.
On November 10, 2000, he took his oath as a citizen of the Philippines.

On November 21, 2000, he applied for registration as a voter of Butunga, Oras, Eastern
Samar which was approved in 2001. On February 27, 2001, he filed his certificate of
candidacy stating that he had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar for 2 years.

Incumbent mayor Alvarez, who was running for re-election sought to cancel Coquillas
certificate of candidacy on the ground that his statement as to the two year residency in
Oras was a material misrepresentation as he only resided therein for 6 months after his
oath as a citizen.

Before the COMELEC could render a decision, elections commenced and Coquilla was
proclaimed the winner. On July 19, 2001, COMELEC granted Alvarez petition and
ordered the cancellation of petitioners certificate of candidacy.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Coquilla had been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar at least on year
before the elections held on May 14, 2001 as what he represented in his COC.

RULING:
No. The statement in petitioners certificate of candidacy that he had been a resident of
Oras, Eastern Samar for two years at the time he filed such certificate is not true. The
question is whether the COMELEC was justified in ordering the cancellation of his
certificate of candidacy for this reason. Petitioner made a false representation of a
material fact in his certificate of candidacy, thus rendering such certificate liable to
cancellation. In the case at bar, what is involved is a false statement concerning a
candidates qualification for an office for which he filed the certificate of candidacy. This
is a misrepresentation of a material fact justifying the cancellation of petitioners
certificate of candidacy. The cancellation of petitioners certificate of candidacy in this
case is thus fully justified.