AGENCY: P. V.

FORMALITIES REQUIRED FOR THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP 02

BALGAMELO CABILING MA V COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F.

FERNANDEZ, JR., (Bureau of Immigration), and MAT G.
CATRAL
[G.R. No. 183133. July 26, 2010] Perez., J.:
(Other petitioners: Mafelix Cabaling Ma, Jr and Valeriano
Cabaling Ma)
(Other respondents: Associate Commissioner Arther
Coronogan, Associate Commissioner Jose Cabochan,
Associate Commissioner Teodoro Delarmente, and Associate
Commissioner Franklin Littaua)
FACTS
Petitioners are Chinese nationals of a foreign father and
a Filipina Mother. Petitioners are born in the Philippines
and have resided in the country for 60 years.
Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo), Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr.
(Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma (Valeriano), Lechi Ann Ma
(Lechi Ann), Arceli Ma (Arceli), Nicolas Ma (Nicolas), and
Isidro Ma (Isidro) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a
Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.
Records reveal that petitioners Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and
Valeriano were all born under aegis of the 1935 Philippine
Constitution
They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in
this country for almost sixty (60) years; they spent their
whole lives, studied and received their primary and
secondary education in the country; they do not speak nor
understand the Chinese language, have not set foot in
Taiwan, and do not know any relative of their father; they
have not even traveled abroad; and they have already
raised their respective families in the Philippines. During
their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of
Immigration their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs).
Immediately upon reaching the age of twenty-one, they
claimed Philippine citizenship in accordance with
Section 1(4), Article IV, of the 1935 Constitution.1 Thus,
on 15 August 1969, Felix, Jr. executed his affidavit of election
of Philippine citizenship and took his oath of allegiance
before then Judge Jose L. Gonzalez, Municipal Judge,
Surigao, Surigao del Norte.
Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine
citizens, petitioners, however, failed to have the
necessary documents registered in the civil registry as
required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An
Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect
Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose
Mother is a Filipino Citizen) . It was only on 27 July 2005 or
more than thirty (30) years after they elected Philippine
citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so. On the other
hand, there is no showing that Valeriano complied with the
registration requirement.

1 which provides that (t)hose whose mothers are citizens of the

Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine

citizenship are citizens of the Philippines.

Bureau of Immigration received the Complaint-Affidavit

of a certain Mat G. Catral (Mr. Catral), alleging that Felix
(Yao Kong) Ma and his seven (7) children are undesirable
and overstaying aliens.
Immigration Bureau: charged them for violation of
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 failed and
continuously failed to present any valid document to
show their respective status in the Philippines. They
likewise failed to produce documents to show their election
of Philippines (sic) citizenship, hence, undocumented and
overstaying foreign nationals in the country.
Board of Commissioners (Board) of the Bureau of
Immigration (BI): Should have followed the following:

1. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, providing that the

election of Philippine citizenship embodied in a statement
sworn before any officer authorized to administer oaths
and the oath of allegiance shall be filed with the nearest
civil registry;
2. Memorandum Order dated 18 August 1956 of the CID,
requiring the filing of a petition for the cancellation of
their alien certificate of registration with the CID, in view
of their election of Philippine citizenship;
3. Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 182, 19 August
1982; and DOJ Guidelines, 27 March 1985, requiring that
the records of the proceedings be forwarded to the
Ministry (now the Department) of Justice for final
determination and review.
Supposedly for failure to comply with the procedure to
prove a valid claim to Philippine citizenship via election
proceedings, public respondents concluded that Felix,
Jr. Balgamelo, Arceli, Valeriano and Lechi Ann are
undocumented and/or improperly documented aliens.
CA affirmed.

ISSUE(S)

W/N the absence of registration will invalidate the election

of citizenship (NO)
RULING
Petitioners complied with the first and second
requirements upon reaching the age of majority. It was
only the registration of the documents of election with
the civil registry that was belatedly done. The instant
case presents a different factual setting.
We rule that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners,
the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost
and they should be allowed to complete the statutory
requirements2 for such election.
We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise of
suffrage, being elected public official, continuous and

2 (1) a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the

Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3) registration of

the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry
were complied with only fourteen (14) years after he reached the age of
majority.
Cheska

AGENCY: P. V. FORMALITIES REQUIRED FOR THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP 02

uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts

showing exercise of Philippine citizenship can take the place
of election of citizenship. What we now say is that where, as
in petitioners case, the election of citizenship has in fact
been done and documented within the constitutional and
statutory timeframe, the registration of the documents of
election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the
meanwhile positive acts of citizenship have publicly,
consistently, and continuously been done. The actual
exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over half a century by
the herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine
public which is equivalent to formal registration of the
election of Philippine citizenship.
For what purpose is registration?
To register is to record or annotate. American and Spanish
authorities are unanimous on the meaning of the term to
register as to enter in a register; to record formally and
distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a list. In general, registration
refers to any entry made in the books of the registry,
including both registration in its ordinary and strict sense,
and cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal notes.
In strict acceptation, it pertains to the entry made in the
registry which records solemnly and permanently the right
of ownership and other real rights . Simply stated,
registration is made for the purpose of notification.3
Actual knowledge may even have the effect of
registration as to the person who has knowledge
thereof. As pertinent is the holding that registration neither
adds to its validity nor converts an invalid instrument into a
valid one between the parties. It lays emphasis on the
validity of an unregistered document.
COMPARISON WITH THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP:
In a contract of partnership, we said that the purpose of
registration is to give notice to third parties; that failure
to register the contract does not affect the liability of the
partnership and of the partners to third persons; and
that neither does such failure affect the partnerships
juridical personality.
An unregistered contract of partnership is valid as among
the partners, so long as it has the essential requisites,
because the main purpose of registration is to give notice
to third parties, and it can be assumed that the members
themselves knew of the contents of their contract.
The non-registration of a deed of donation does not also
affect its validity. Registration is not a requirement for
the validity of the contract as between the parties, for the
effect of registration serves chiefly to bind third persons.
Registration, then, is the confirmation of the existence
of a fact. In the instant case, registration is the confirmation
of election as such election. It is not the registration of the
act of election, although a valid requirement under
Commonwealth Act No. 625, that will confer Philippine

3 Pascua v. Court of Appeals,

citizenship on the petitioners. It is only a means of

confirming the fact that citizenship has been claimed.
Petitioners should not be expected to secure E-series
ACR because it would be inconsistent with the election of
citizenship and its constructive registration through their
acts made public, among others, their exercise of suffrage,
election as public official, and continued and uninterrupted
stay in the Philippines since birth. The failure to register as
aliens is, obviously, consistent with petitioners election of
Philippine citizenship.
The leanings towards recognition of the citizenship of
children of Filipino mothers have been indicated not
alone by the jurisprudence that liberalized the
requirement on time of election, and recognized
positive acts of Philippine citizenship.
Having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is the basis of the
right of the petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship.
Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and
substance.
The failure to register the election in the civil registry
should not defeat the election and resultingly negate
the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother.
The lacking requirements may still be complied with
subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative
penalties, if any. The documents they submitted
supporting their allegations that they have already
registered with the civil registry, although belatedly, should
be examined for validation purposes by the appropriate
agency, in this case, the Bureau of Immigration. Other
requirements embodied in the administrative orders and
other issuances of the Bureau of Immigration and the
Department of Justice shall be complied with within a
reasonable time.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29 August 2007, and the
Resolution dated 29 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 89532 affirming the Judgment dated 2 February
2005, and the Resolution dated 8 April 2005 of the Bureau of
Immigration in BSI-D.C. No. AFF-04-574 OC-STF-04-09/231416 are hereby SET ASIDE with respect to petitioners
Balgamelo Cabiling Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr., and Valeriano
Cabiling Ma. Petitioners are given ninety (90) days from
notice within which to COMPLY with the requirements of the
Bureau of Immigration embodied in its Judgment of 2
February 2005. The Bureau of Immigration shall ENSURE
that all requirements, including the payment of their
financial obligations to the state, if any, have been complied
with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative
fines; REVIEW the documents submitted by the petitioners;
and ACT thereon in accordance with the decision of this
Court.

Cheska