Velilla v.

Posadas
1. Moody died in AU
2. Executed will in PH
2.1 bequeathed all his property to his only sis (Ida palmer) a citizen
of NY, USA
2.2 he left mostly shares of stock and bonds of corps. Organized
under PH laws
2.3 he had no business elsewhere
3. petition for appointment of spl admin was filed by Maxwell Thebaut.
4. OTOH, petition for probate was filed by Ida Palmer
4.1 Ida was declared to be the sole and only heiress by the TC
5. The BIR prepared an inheritance tax return for the estate of Arthur.
6. The estate paid under protest the total amount of 90,019.75 under
protest.
7. CIR overruled the protest made by Ida Palmer
8. The parties reserved their right to introduce additional evidence
Issue brought forth: there is no PH la by virtue of which any inheritance
tax maybe levied, assessed or collected upon transfer by death without
due process of law,
9. It was alleged that at the time of arthurs death, he was a nonresident.
Another issue: where is the legal domicile of Arthur?
He was legally domiciled in the PH
Story goes that he had leprosy and by law he must be admitted to the
leper colony. He got scared so he left the country by secret.
For sometime after he left, he lived in france (3 months)
But, he wrote a letter to a certain harry wendt. He offered to sell his
stake in the Camera Supply Co. stating that hes certain that hell
never return or do biz again in the PH.
Remember, he died in India.
SC: there was no statement of Arthur that he adopted a new domicile while
he was absent from manila.
In paris, there was no evidence that he had a fixed abode since he
only stayed there for 3 months

In india, it was only there that he wrote that he had no intent on

returning or doing biz in PH
The evidence on record shows clearly that he left because he wanted
to avoid being confined in the leper colony.
See doctrine.

Kookooritchkin v. SOLGEN
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

KK filed with the LC a petition for naturalization

The proceedings were delayed because of the Jap. Invasion.
The petition was eventually granted in 1947.
Though KK was cross examined, they didnt file their opposition.
LC:
5.1 in 1940, he filed his declaration ot become a citizen of PH
5.2 he was married to a Filipina named concepcion Segovia, had a
son named Ronald KK.
5.3 He had a job here and had 80 fils under him
5.4 He speaks and writes ENG and BICOL
5.5 Socially intermingles with locals
5.6 Believes in the principles underlying the PH consti
5.7 Never been accused of any crime
5.8 Always conducted himself in aproper and irreproachable manner
5.9 He could have colluded with the Japs before the ruskies declared
war against JP but fought against japs by joining huks
5.10
He disclaims allegiance to the communist Russia
5.11
Doesnt believe in violence
5.12
Not a polygamist
5.13
Not suffuring from any mental illness
6. From this, appellants appeal to the SC
6.1 KKs declaration is not sufficient because he didnt establish
entry for perma residence and a certificate showing the
circumstances of his arrival
6.2 No evidence to show the KK had lawfully been admitted into PH
for perma residence
SC: attachment (in 6.1) of certificate of arrival is not sufficient. Appellees
contention no merit.

Reconstituted declaration clearly shows that he declared that he

arrived in pert of manila in march 1, 1923.
See doctrine 3 (proof of perma residence)

SC on being stateless, LC is correct in finding that KK is stateless

No merit in APLNTs contention that KK failed to show he
renounced citizenship of ruskie through ruskie law.
See doctrine 7

Mercardo v. manzano
1. Mercado and manzano both ran for the post of Vice mayor of Makati
in the 1999 elections
2. A certain mamaril filed a disquali case agaist manzano because he
was allegedly a dual citizen and that under the LGC, its not allowed.
3. COMELEC at first disqualified him but on MR, it was reversed and
he now is qualified.
3.1 he was born in SF, USA,
3.2 but he was born a Fil cit. by operation of law (jus sanguinis)
3.2.1 he takes after the citizenship of the parent
3.3 his parents brought him here when he was 6
3.4 upon reaching the age of majority, he registered himself as a
voter and participated in 3 elections.
3.5 Accdg to the comelec, this was an effective renunciation of his
US citizenship
4. Pursuant to the COMELEC reso, board of canvassers declared him
the winner.
5. Mercado filed certiorari with SC alleging COMELEC made mistake
when:
5.1 declared manzano as having renounced his US citizenship when
he registered himself as a voter
5.2 COMELEC declared hes elegible to run.
SC:

Petitioners contention that taking part in PH elections is not

sufficient to renounce has NO MERIT.
SC agreed but filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for a post
in effect renounced his US citizenship
His COC contained:
I am a Fil citizen; natural born

I am a registered voter
Maintain true faith and allegiance etc.
SC: filing of COC is sufficient.
See 649 (2 checks)

Marcos v. NLRC
Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for
the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. Private
respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, a candidate for the same position, filed a
petition for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC alleging
that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency.
Private respondent contended that petitioner lacked the Constitution's oneyear residency requirement for candidates for the House of Representatives.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner has satisfied the residency requirement as
mandated by Art. VI, Sec. 6 of the Constitution
Decision:
WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary
residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in
the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned Resolutions dated
April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE.
Respondent COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of
Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the duly elected Representative of the
First District of Leyte.
Ratio Decidendi:
Yes. For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile.
The Court upheld the qualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration
in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the district for only 7
months, because of the following: (a) a minor follows the domicile of her
parents; Tacloban became petitioners domicile of origin by operation of law
when her father brought the family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost
only when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and

acts which correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive
proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be
deemed to continue; (c) the wife does not automatically gain the husbands
domicile because the term residence in Civil Law does not mean the same
thing in Political Law; when petitioner married President Marcos in 1954,
she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a
domicilium necessarium; (d) even assuming that she gained a new domicile
after her marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one only after her
husband died, her acts following her return to the country clearly indicate
that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.

9225 addresses the problem of dual citizenship by requiring oath

Problem of dual citiz transferred to foreign country and not the
PH.
9225 only recognizes PH citizenship but says nothing about
other citizenships
The case of Mercado v. manzano doesnt set the guidelines for
determining dual allegiance, it only made distinctions.

Ujano v. RP
1. Petitioner was born 66 years ago of Filipino parents in Magsingal
Ilocos Sur.
2. He is married to Maxima O. Ujano
3. has one son, Prospero, who is now of legal age.
4. left the Philippines for the United States of America in 1927 where
after a residence of more than 20 years he acquired American
citizenship by naturalization.
5. returned to the Philippines on November 10, 1960 to which he was
admitted merely for a temporary stay.
6. owns an agricultural land and a residential house situated in
Magsingal, Ilocos Sur worth not less than P5,000.00.
7. receives a monthly pension of $115.00 from the Social Security
Administration of the United States of America. He has
8. no record of conviction
9. his intention to renounce his allegiance to the U.S.A.
10. CFI: denied petition
6 months residence as required by law not met!
'residence' requirement in cases of naturalization, has already
been interpreted to mean the actual or constructive permanent
home otherwise known as legal residence or domicile
petitioner, who is presently a citizen of the United States of
America, was admitted into this country as a temporary visitor, a
status he has maintained at the time of the filing of the present
petition for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and which
continues up to the present. Such being the case, he has not
complied with the specific requirement of law regarding six
months residence before filing his present petition."

AASJS v. datumanong
1. Petitioner files a petition for prohibition against SOJ Datumanong to
prevent the implementation of the RA 9225
2. Pet aver that 9225 is unconstitutional because it violates Art. 4, Sec.
5 of the Consti.
2.1 dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law
Issue: w/n 9225 is unconstitutional
Pet contention:
1. 9225 cheapens PH citizenship
2. Sec. 2 allows PH citizens (nat born or naturalized) who became
foreigners to retain PH citizenship w/o losing foreign citizenship by
simply taking oath of allegiance
Respo. Contention:
1. OSG claims that Sec. 2 merely declares state policy that PH citizens
not deemed to have lost their PH citizenship if they become citizen
of another country.
2. Since the oath in Sec 3 doesnt allow dual allegiance since oath taken
is an effective renunciation and repudiation of foreign citizenship.
SC:

Resort to Congressional deliberations

Q and A by Rep. Dilangen and Rep. Locsin
Rep Locsin:
9225 aims to facilitate the reacquisition of PH citizenship

SC:
1. We can hardly add to the foregoing comment of the court a quo.

2. We find it to be a correct interpretation [Section 3 (1) of

Commonwealth Act No. 63] which requires that before a person
may reacquire his Philippine citizenship he "shall have resided in
the Philippines at least six months before he applies for
naturalization."
3. The word "residence" used therein imports not only an intention
to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention (Yen vs. Republic, L-18885,
January 31,1964; Nuval vs. Guray, 52 Phil. 645).
4. Indeed, that term cannot refer to the presence in this country of a
person who has been admitted only on the strength of a permit for
temporary residence.
4.1 In other words, the term residence used in said Act should have
the same connotation as that used in Commonwealth Act No.
473, the Revised Naturalization Law, even if in approving the
law permitting the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship our
Congress has liberalized its requirement by foregoing the
qualifications and special disqualifications prescribed therein.
5. The only way by which petitioner can reacquire his lost Philippine
citizenship is by securing a quota for permanent residence so that
he may come within the purview of the residence requirement of
Commonwealth Act No. 63.

Mo Ya Lim yao v. Commissioner

Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a nonimmigrant on 8 February 1961. In the interrogation made in connection with
her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she
stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she
desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her great grand uncle,
Lau Ching Ping. She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March
1961 for a period of one month.
On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of
P1,000.00 to undertake, among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would
actually depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her
authorized period of stay in this country or within the period as in his

discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative

might properly allow.
After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the
Philippines up to 13 February 1962. On 25 January 1962, she contracted
marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged
Filipino citizen. Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of
Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and immediate
deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an action
for injunction. At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her
arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write and speak either
English or Tagalog, except for a few words. She could not name any Filipino
neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not know the
names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law. As a result, the Court of First
Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim
Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon
her marriage to a Filipino citizen.
HELD:
Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a
Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided
she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the
same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently
naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the
moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not
suffer from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the
alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15
is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of an applicant for
naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not required to
go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a
Filipino citizen hereof, it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino
cannot be denied the same privilege.
This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that the
Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our country,
both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure (a
substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable the alien wife of a
Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own citizenship settled and
established so that she may not have to be called upon to prove it everytime

she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or business or exercise a

right reserved only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is
not vested as of the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of
citizenship, as the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even
as to native-born Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is material
or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case. Whatever the
corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such
citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be
threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung,
was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her
marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino
citizen of 25 January 1962. Read full text

Caasi v. CA
Pre lim facts:
1. 2 cases consolidated
1.1 GR 84508: pet for review on certiorari by Caasi from
COMELEC decision dismissing his petition to disqualify Miguel
1.1.1 COMELEC held that:
1.1.1.1 possession of green card doesnt sufficiently
establish he abandoned his PH residence
1.1.1.2 inspite of his green card, he has sufficiently
indicated his intent to continuously reside in bolinao
1.1.1.3 respondent has met the basic requirement of
citizenship and residence for local elective
candidates
1.1.1.4 as such, no more legal obstacle
1.2 GR 88831: pet for review in dismissing his petition for quo
warranto against Miguel
1.2.1 CA held: its pointless for rtc to question the
qualification because the COMELEC has already ruled
that Miguel has already met the basic requirements

1.3 he voted there in all previous election (including the plebiscite

for the 1987 consti)
whether or not Miguel is qualified? NO
SC:
A. on the content of the application and actual green card:
Miguel filled it up himself and his answer in the length of stay is
Permanently
The green card on its face contained person identified is entitled
to reside permanently and work in the US
Based on this, SC found that he an intent to live there
permanently as evidence by the foregoing.
It constituted abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
PH
A resident alien in the US OWES TEMPORARY
ALLEGIANCE TO THE US.
B. Legal basis
Applicable law is BP 881 Sec 68 which states: any person who is
a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country
shall not be qualified o run for any elective office under this code
Article XI, Sec. 18 is not the correct legal basis because this
consti basis presupposes that the person in question is already
elected.
C. On miguels contention that his filing of the COC constituted
renouncing green card
No merit
This is not enough
There must be some overt act before his filing (e.g. surrender of
the green card to the proper US authorities)
As found by SC, there was no such waiver before filing.

Facts:
1. Miguel answered in both petitions that:
1.1 he hold a green card for the reason that he want ease of access to
the US to visit doctor and children
1.2 alleged that hes a perma resident of bolinao Pampanga

Yu v. republic
1. Joselito yu, represented by his guardian juan barrera
2. His allegation were:
2.1 hes a minor 13 y/o

2.2 a chinese citz living in manila for more than 3 yrs

2.3 as far as he can recall, hes been using ricardo sy for school and
baptismal records
3. RTC: motu propio dismissed w/o hearing
4. Yu appeals
SC:

R103 (change of name applies to any person)

Note the generic name person
Its allowed as long as the requirements are met:
Petition is verified
Signed by petitioner/ someone in his behalf
Set forth [1] bonafinde resident of province where petition filed
[2] the reason [3] name asked for
FIL CIT NOT ONE OF THEM
See big green highlight plus yellow square.

So v. republic
1. Pet files petition naturalization with the RTC under CA 473
2. He alleges all those contained in the law
2.1 attached to his petition was the joint affidavit of his 2 witnesses
(atty. Adasa and salcedo)
2.2 both testified that they knew the petitioner by mentioning
circumstances and some facts.
3. The RTC granted the petition
4. RP-OSG appealed the decision of the RTC with the CA
4.1 the 2 witnesses were not qualified
4.2 petitioner is not qualified to be a citizen
4.2.1 failed to prove all the quali and none of the disquali
4.2.2 the 2 who vouched for him didnt know him well (both
didnt even reside with him)
4.2.3 So didnt give any specific answers to the questions
propounded to him by his lawyer
5. Petitioner contends:
5.1 the requirements for naturalization have been relaxed since the
PH entered into diplomatic relations with PRC
5.2 it was further relaxed upon passing of 9139
5.3 it complied with the publication and notice requirements and
none of the agencies concerned opposed.

6. OSG replied that 9139 applies to administrative naturalizations and

not those filed in court.
7. CA: reversed RTC
7.1 2 witnesses were not credible
7.2 Petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of the law
(applicant was not 21 y/o at the time of petition)
8. MR of petitioner denied
9. Hence petition to SC
Issue:
Whether or not CA erred? NO!
OSG contention:
a. 9139 doesnt apply to judicial naturalizations, only applies to
administrative applications
b. Its failure to opposes doesnt bar it from appealing (in fact, its even
authorized to question by filing petition for cancellation)
c. Again, the 2 witnesses failed to prove qualifications
SC: in favour of OSG, petitioners petition lack of merit.
A. RA 9139 vs. CA473
RA 9139: applies to administrative acts; covers native born aliens who lived
all their lives in PH; who thought their flips all along; etc; purpose is to make
naturalization less tedious
CA473: applies o judicial naturalization; covers all aliens regardless of class.
Since petitioner applied with the courts, its presumed its covered by CA 473
B. On competence of witness
Theres failure to prove witnesses were credible and these witnesses
possessed good moral character
Records doesnt show that witnesses were of good morals
themselves (educational attainment doesnt prove good morals)
All in all, petitioner failed to prove full and complete compliance with CA
473.