Mercado v. Manzano Case Digest [G.R. No. 135083.

May 26, 1999]

FACTS:

Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were both candidates for Vice-
Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections.

Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered the highest number of
votes. However, his proclamation was suspended due to the pending petition for
disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on the ground that he was not a citizen of
the Philippines but of the United States.

From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino and a US
citizen.

The Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as candidate for said

elective position.

However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of

the respondent was reversed. Respondent was held to have renounced his US
citizenship when he attained the age of majority and registered himself as a voter in
the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998.

Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati City on August 31,
1998.

Thus the present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective office in the
philippines.

RULING:

The court ruled that the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A.
7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is
different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the application
of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a situation
in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more
states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an
individual's volition. Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."

Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject
to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with
dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy,
they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual
citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of
conflicting laws of different states.

By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time forswear

allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby
terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the
foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his
foreign citizenship. That is of no moment.

When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an oath that he

renounces his loyalty to any other country or government and solemnly declares
that he owes his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed
by law is satisfied and complied with. The determination whether such renunciation
is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our Naturalization Law lies within the
province and is an exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply the
law duly enacted by the legislative department of the Republic. No foreign law may
or should interfere with its operation and application.

The court ruled that the filing of certificate of candidacy of respondent sufficed to
renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he
might have as a dual citizen. By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a
Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country;
that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true
faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private
respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively
repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as
a dual citizen.

On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when
considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his
education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in
this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship.

His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his undertaking made
under oath. Should he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring
the loss of his Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate proceedings.
In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, the court sustained the denial of entry into the country
of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he
applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in commercial
documents executed abroad that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction
can be taken against any one who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his
foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act constituting renunciation of his
Philippine citizenship.

The petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Manzano
G.R. No. 135083, May 26 1999

FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the City of
Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. Respondent was then declared the winning candidate; however its proclamation was
suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that private
respondent was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States.

In its resolution, dated May 7, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC granted the petition of Mamaril and ordered
the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citizen and, Section
40(d) of the Local Government Code provides that persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any
elective position.

Respondent admitted that he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration under Alien Certificate of
Registration No. B-31632 and alleged that he is a Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a Filipino father and a
Filipino mother. He was born in the United States, San Francisco, California, on September 14, 1955, and is considered
an American citizen under US Laws. But notwithstanding his registration as an American citizen, he did not lose his
Filipino citizenship. From these facts, respondent is a dual citizen - both a Filipino and a US citizen.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Manzano is qualified to hold office as Vice-Mayor.

HELD:
The petition was dismissed. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the
concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by
the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which
adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Private respondent is
considered as a dual citizen because he is born of Filipino parents but was born in San Francisco, USA. Such a person, ipso
facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Considering the
citizenship clause under Article IV of the Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines
to posses dual citizenship:
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli;

(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children
are citizens of that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals volition.

By filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and
in effect renounced his American citizenship. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American
citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.

By declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant
of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith
and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this
country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a
dual citizen. On the other hand, private respondents oath of allegiance to the Philippine, when considered with the fact
that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in
past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship

Case Digest: Republic v. Sagun

G.R. No. 187567 : February 15, 2012

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NORA FE SAGUN,

Respondent.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS:

Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a Chinese national, and
Marta Borromeo, a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City
and did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. In 1992,
at the age of 33 and after getting married to Alex Sagun, she executed an Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Said document was notarized by Atty.
Cristeta Leungon but was not recorded and registered with the Local Civil Registrar
of Baguio City.

Sometime in September 2005, respondent applied for a Philippine passport. Her

application was denied due to the citizenship of her father and there being no
annotation on her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.
Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of Philippine
citizenship averring that she was raised as a Filipino and she is a registered voter of
Precinct No. 0419A of Barangay Manuel A. Roxas in Baguio City and had voted in
local and national elections as shown in the Voter Certification. She asserted that by
virtue of her positive acts, she has effectively elected Philippine citizenship and
such fact should be annotated on her record of birth so as to entitle her to the
issuance of a Philippine passport.

After conducting a hearing, the trial court rendered the assailed Decision on April 3,
2009 granting the petition and declaring respondent a Filipino citizen.

Upon payment of the required fees, the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City is hereby
directed to annotate [on] her birth certificate, this judicial declaration of Filipino
citizenship of said petitioner.

Petitioner, through the OSG, directly filed the instant recourse via a petition for
review on certiorari before us. Petitioner points out that while respondent executed
an oath of allegiance before a notary public, there was no affidavit of her election of
Philippine citizenship. Additionally, her oath of allegiance which was not registered
with the nearest local civil registry was executed when she was already 33 years old
or 12 years after she reached the age of majority.

ISSUES: Whether or not an action or proceeding for judicial declaration of Philippine

citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally permissible; and,Whether or not an
election of Philippine citizenship, made twelve (12) years after reaching the age of
majority, is considered to have been made within a reasonable time as interpreted
by jurisprudence.

HELD: The original ruling was reversed.

POLITICAL LAW: requirements of citizenship

The petition is meritorious.

Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of
the citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice exist for settlement of justiciable
controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an
act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law,
for said breach of right. As an incident only of the adjudication of the rights of the
parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a pronouncement
relative to their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power.

Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a specific declaration of
respondents Filipino citizenship as such pronouncement was not within the court's
competence.

As to the propriety of respondent's petition seeking a judicial declaration of election

of Philippine citizenship, it is imperative that we determine whether respondent is
required under the law to make an election and if so, whether she has complied with
the procedural requirements in the election of Philippine citizenship.

When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing charter was the 1935
Constitution, which declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers are
citizens of the Philippines and elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

xxxx

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age
of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.

Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a
legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship
of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine
citizenship. The right to elect Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973
Constitution when it provided that [t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant
to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five are citizens
of the Philippines. Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried
over to the 1987 Constitution which states that [t]hose born before January 17,
1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority are Philippine citizens. It should be noted, however, that the 1973 and
1987 Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citizenship should not be
understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition of
citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. If the citizenship of a person
was subject to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge
under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced
before the effectivity of the new Constitution.

EDISON SO, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:
He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has
lived in No. 528 Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee,
he derives an average annual income of around P100,000.00 with free board
and lodging and other benefits; he is single, able to speak and write English,
Chinese and Tagalog; he is exempt from the filing of Declaration of Intention
to become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473.
On March 22, 2002, the RTC issued an Order8 setting the petition for hearing
at 8:30 a.m. of December 12 and 17, 2002 during which all persons
concerned were enjoined to show cause, if any, why the petition should not
be granted. The entire petition and its annexes, including the order, were
ordered published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official
Gazette and also in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila.
The RTC likewise ordered that copies of the petition and notice be posted in
public and conspicuous places in the Manila City Hall Building.9
During the hearing, petitioner presented Atty. Adasa, Jr. who testified that he
came to know petitioner in 1991 as the legal consultant and adviser of the
So familys business. He would usually attend parties and other social
functions hosted by petitioners family. He knew petitioner to be obedient,
hardworking, and possessed of good moral character, including all the
qualifications mandated by law.
Another witness for petitioner, Mark Salcedo, testified that he has known
petitioner for ten (10) years; they first met at a birthday party in 1991. He
and petitioner were classmates at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) where
they took up Pharmacy. Petitioner was a member of some school
organizations and mingled well with friends.
The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003.
Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), appealed the decision to the CA on the following grounds:

Issue:
W/N Edison So did meet all the qualification needed to be a naturalized
Filipino citizen.

Ruling:
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the
political body of a nation by clothing him or her with the privileges of a
citizen.44 Under current and existing laws, there are three ways by which an
alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative
naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant
to C.A. No. 473, as amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of
a law enacted by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws the
former covers all aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native-born
aliens who lived here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any
other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have
demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the customs
and traditions.52 To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A.
No. 9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less
tedious, less technical and more encouraging which is administrative rather
than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature believes that there is a
need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines, there is nothing
from which it can be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended
or repealed by R.A. No. 9139. What the legislature had in mind was merely to
prescribe another mode of acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be
availed of by native born aliens. The only implication is that, a native born
alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative naturalization,
subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.
In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not
only his own good moral character but also the good moral character of
his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons.56 Within the purview of the
naturalization law, a "credible person" is not only an individual who has not
been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and has
no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or
testimony is not incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration
made but the person making it. This implies that such person must have a
good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest and upright;
that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be
taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the applicants worthiness.
e do not agree with petitioners argument that respondent is precluded from
questioning the RTC decision because of its failure to oppose the petition. A
naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the
decision rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of
naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the
applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Law
and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of
naturalization upon grounds or conditions arising subsequent to the granting
of the certificate.59 If the government can challenge a final grant of
citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the
reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the
lower court.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

So Ruling
 The Courts ruling:
Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent
membership in a political community. It denotes possession
within that particular political community of full civil and
political rights subject to special disqualifications. Reciprocally,
it imposes the duty of allegiance to the political community 1.
The core of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political rights,
that is, the right to participate in government principally
through the right to vote, the right to hold public office and the
right to petition the government for redress of grievance2.
No less than the 1987 Constitution enumerates who are Filipino
citizens3. Among those listed are citizens by naturalization,
which refers to the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing
him with the privilege of a native-born citizen. Under the
present laws, the process of naturalization can be judicial or
administrative. Judicially, C.A. No. 473 provides that after
hearing the petition for citizenship and receipt of evidence
showing that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications required by law, the competent court
may order the issuance of the proper naturalization certificate
and the registration thereof in the proper civil registry. On the
other hand, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9139 provides that aliens
born and residing in the Philippines may be granted Philippine
citizenship by administrative proceeding by filing a petition for
citizenship with the Special Committee, which, in view of the
facts before it, may approve the petition and issue a certificate
of naturalization4. In both cases, the petitioner shall take an
oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a sovereign nation.
It is a well-entrenched rule that Philippine citizenship should not
easily be given away. All those seeking to acquire it must prove,
to the satisfaction of the Court, that they have complied with all
the requirements of the law5. The reason for this requirement is
simple. Citizenship involves political status; hence, every
person must be proud of his citizenship and should cherish it.
Verily, a naturalization case is not an ordinary judicial contest,
to be decided in favor of the party whose claim is supported by
the preponderance of the evidence. Naturalization is not a
right, but one of privilege of the most discriminating, as well as
delicate and exacting nature, affecting, as it does, public
interest of the highest order, and which may be enjoyed only
under the precise conditions prescribed by law therefor 6.
Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization, the
application must show substantial and formal compliance with
C.A. No. 473. In other words, an applicant must comply with the
jurisdictional requirements, establish his or her possession of
the qualifications and none of the disqualifications enumerated
under the law, and present at least two (2) character witnesses
to support his allegations7. In Ong v. Republic of the
Philippines8, the Court listed the requirements for character
witnesses, namely:
1. That they are citizens of the Philippines;
2. That they are credible persons;
3. That they personally know the petitioner;
4. That they personally know him to be a resident of the
Philippines for the period of time required by law;
5. That they personally know him to be a person of good
repute;
6. That they personally know him to be morally
irreproachable;
7. That he has, in their opinion, all the qualifications
necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines; and
8. That he is not in any way disqualified under the
provisions of the Naturalization Law.
In vouching for the good moral character of the applicant for
citizenship, a witness, for purposes of naturalization, must be a
credible person as he becomes an insurer of the character of
the candidate9. The Court, in Ong, explained:
a credible person is, to our mind, not only an individual who
has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a
police character and has no police record; who has not perjured
in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not incredible.
What must be credible is not the declaration made, but the
person making it. This implies that such person must have a
good standing in the community; that he is known to be honest
and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable;
and that his word may be taken on its face value, as a good
warranty of the worthiness of the petitioner.
In consonance with the above dictum, in Lim Ching Tian v.
Republic10, the Court explained that the law requires that a
vouching witness should have actually known an applicant for
whom he testified for the requisite period prescribed therein to
give him the necessary competence to act as such. The reason
behind this requirement is that a vouching witness is in a way
an insurer of the character of petitioner because on his
testimony the court is of necessity compelled to rely in deciding
the merits of his petition. It is, therefore, imperative that he be
competent and reliable. And he is only competent to testify on
his conduct, character and moral fitness if he has had the
opportunity to observe him personally, if not intimately, during
the period he has allegedly known him. The law, in effect,
requires that the character witnesses be not mere ordinary
acquaintances of the applicant, but possessed of such intimate
knowledge of the latter as to be competent to testify of their
personal knowledge; and that they have each one of the
requisite qualifications and none of the statutory
disqualifications.
In this case, the OSG mainly harps on the petitioners failure to
prove that his witnesses are credible.
The Court agrees.
The records of the case show that the joint affidavits executed
by petitioners witnesses did not establish
their own qualification to stand as such in a naturalization
proceeding. In turn, petitioner did not present evidence proving
that the persons he presented were credible. In the words of
the CA, he did not prove that his witnesses had good standing
in the community, known to be honest and upright, reputed to
be trustworthy and reliable, and that their word may be taken
at face value, as a good warranty of the worthiness of
petitioner.11
While there is no showing that petitioners witnesses were of
doubtful moral inclinations, there was likewise no indication
that they were persons whose qualifications were at par with
the requirements of the law on naturalization. Simply put, no
evidence was ever proffered to prove the witnesses good
standing in the community, honesty, moral uprightness, and
most importantly, reliability. As a consequence, their
statements about the petitioner do not possess the measure of
credibility demanded of in naturalization cases. This lack of
credibility on the part of the witnesses, unfortunately,
weakens or renders futile petitioners claim of worthiness. An
applicant for Philippine citizenship would carefully testify as to
his qualifications, placing emphasis on his good traits and
character. This is expected of a person who longs to gain
benefits and advantages that Philippine citizenship bestows.
Therefore, a serious assessment of an applicants witnesses,
both as to the credibility of their person and their very
testimony, is an essential facet of naturalization proceedings
that may not be brushed aside.
Further, petitioners witnesses only averred general
statements without specifying acts or events that would exhibit
petitioners traits worthy of the grant of Philippine citizenship.
For instance, a statement in their affidavits as to petitioners
adherence to the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution is not evidence, per se, of petitioners agreement
and zeal to Philippine ideals. These appear to be empty
declarations if not coming from credible witnesses.
It bears stressing that the CA was correct in finding that the
testimonies of petitioners witnesses only proved that he
mingled socially with Filipinos. While almost all of the witnesses
testified that they knew petitioner since birth and that they had
interacted with petitioners family in times of celebration, this
did not satisfy the other requirements set by law, that is, a
genuine desire to learn and embrace the Filipino ideals and
traditions. Besides, both the NBI and BOI reports cast doubt on
petitioners alleged social interaction with Filipinos. The
background checks done on petitioner yielded negative results
due to the uncooperative behavior of the members of his
household. In fact, petitioner himself disobliged when asked for
an interview by BOI agents.
To the Court, this is a display of insincerity to embrace Filipino
customs, traditions and ideals. This leads to the inescapable
conclusion that petitioner failed to prove that he has all the
qualifications entitling him to the grant of Philippine citizenship.
Filipino citizenship is predicated upon oneness with the Filipino
people. It is indispensable that an applicant for naturalization
shows his identification with the Philippines as a country
deserving of his wholehearted allegiance. Until there is a
positive and unequivocal showing that this is so in the case of
petitioner, the Court must selfishly decline to confer Philippine
citizenship on one who remains an alien in principles and
sentiment.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the OSG was correct in arguing that
petitioners failure to state his former residence in the petition
was fatal to his application for naturalization. Indeed, this
omission had deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case. Differently stated, the inclusion of present and
former places of residence in the petition is a jurisdictional
requirement, without which the petition suffers from a fatal and
congenital defect which cannot be cured by evidence on the
omitted matter at the trial12.
Here, a character witness had unwittingly revealed that he and
petitioner were neighbors in Sto. Cristo Street before the
latters family transferred to their declared residential address
in Oroquieta Street. This proves that petitioners former
residence was excluded in his allegations contained in the
published petition. In effect, there was an unpardonable lapse
committed in the course of petitioners compliance to the
jurisdictional requirements set be law, rendering the trial
courts decision, not only as erroneous, but void.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January 18, 2012
Decision and the July 23, 2012 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95120 are AFFIRMED. As stated in
the decision of the Court of Appeals, the dismissal is without
prejudice.
SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION, G.R. No. 202809, July 02,

2014, DENNIS L. GO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. Bernas, The 1987 1

Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A Commentary, 2009 Edition,

p. 629.
2
Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines A
Commentary, 2009 Edition pp. 629-630.
3
rticle IV Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1)
Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(2)
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3)
Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4)
Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
4
Republic Act No. 9139 entitled An Act Providing for the Acquisition of
Philippine Citizenship for Certain Aliens by Administrative Naturalization and
for Other purposes.
5
Felipe Tochip v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19637, October 26, 1965.
6
Cuaki Tan Si v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18006, October 31, 1962, 6 SCRA 545,
546 (1962).
7
Section 7. Petition for citizenship. Any person desiring to acquire
Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in
triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth
his name and surname; his present and former places of residence; his
occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and
the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife
and of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the
Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the
name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the
qualifications required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not
disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has
complied with the requirements of section five of this Act; and that he will
reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the
petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition
must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by
the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of
the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the
Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good
repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their
opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines
and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The
petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such
witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the
case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be
made part of the petition.

David vs Agbay

David v. AgbayG.R. No. 199113March 18, 2015Facts:In 1974, petitioner

migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen bynaturalization.
Upon retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines and
purchaseda lot where they constructed a residential house. Petitioner filed a
Miscellaneous LeaseApplication. In said application, petitioner indicated that
he is a Filipino citizen. Agbay opposedthe application on the ground that
petitioner, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land.Meanwhile,
petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of R.A.
9225. TheCENRO issued an order rejecting petitioners MLA. It ruled that
petitioners subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure
the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio.Petitioner argues that he is a
natural-born Filipino citizen, and that by re-acquiring the samestatus under
R.A. No. 9225, he was by legal fiction deemed not to have lost it at the
time of hisnaturalization in Canada and through the time when he was said
to have falsely claimedPhilippine citizenship.

Issue:Whether or not the retroactivity of R.A. 9225 to the date of filing of

application can beapplied to the case at bar.

Held:No. Petitioner lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a

foreign country. R.A. 9225itself treats those of his category as
having already lost Philippine citizenship, incontradistinction to
those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A.
9225came into force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the
policy that considers Filipinos whobecame foreign citizens as not
to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read
togetherwith Section 3 which clarifies that such policy governs all
casesafterthe new laws effectivity.Petitioner made the untruthful
statement in the MLA that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of
thefiling of said application, when in fact he was then still a
Canadian citizen. Under CA 63,naturalization in a foreign country
was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loseshis
Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship
under R.A. 9225 sixmonths later, the falsification was already a
consummated act, the said law having no retroactiveeffect insofar
as his dual citizenship status is concerned.