Citizenship – is a membership in a political community which is personal and more or less permanent

in character. It is the status of being a citizen, or of owing allegiance to a certain State for the privilege
of being under its protection.
Citizenship is political in character, nationality refers to a racial or ethnic relationship.
Who are citizens of the Philippines?
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption
of the 1987 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.
Note: The election must be made within a
reasonable period
(within 3 yrs.) after reaching the age of majority.
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Caram Rule:Under the 1935 Constitution, those born in the Philippines of foreign parent, who before
the adoption of the Constitution had been elected to public office in the Philippines are considered
Filipino citizens.

FPJ Disqualification Case:The 1935 Constitution, during which regime FPJ had seen first light, confers
citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are
legitimate or illegitimate (Tecson vs. Comelec, GR. No. 161434, March 3,2004).
Natural-born citizens:
1. Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship.
2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.
CASES
• The sale of the land in question was consummated sometime in March 1936, during the effectivity of
the 1935 Constitution which prohibits alient to acquire private agricultural lands, save in cases of
hereditary succession. Thus, Lee Liong, a Chinese citizen, was disqualified to acquire the land in
question (Lee vs. Dir. Of Lands, GR 128195, October 3, 2001).

ii) Modes of acquisition

1. By birth
a.Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
b.Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood
relationship.
2.By naturalization – is the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a
native-born citizen.
Effects of naturalization:
1.On the wife: Vests citizenship on the wife who might herself be lawfully naturalized. She need not
prove her qualifications but only that she is not disqualified (Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Comm. Of
Immigration, 41 SCRA 292).

2.On the minor children:

i) if born in the Philippines – automatically becomes a citizen;
ii)If born abroad before the naturalization of the father

a) residing in RP at the time of naturalization – automatically becomes citizens.

b) if not residing in RP at the time of naturalization – considered citizen only during minority, unless
begins to reside permanently in the Phils.

iii) If born outside the Philippines after parents’ naturalization considered Filipino, provided registered
as such before any Phil. Consulate within 1 year after attaining majority age and takes oath of
allegiance.
3. By marriage:
Marriage of Filipino with an alien:
General Rule: The Filipino retains Philippine citizenship.
Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed under the law to have renounce it.

CASES
• The term “natural-born citizens,” is defined to include “those who are citizen of the Philippines. From
birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Phil. Citizenship.” Through the
constitution history, four modes of acquiring citizenship – naturalization, jus soli, res judicata, jus
sanguinis – had been in vogue. Only two, i.e., jus soli and jus sanguinis, could qualify a person to being
a “natural-born” citizen of the Philippines. Jus soli, per Roa vs. Collector of Customs (1912), did not
last long. With the adoption of the 1935 constitution and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs. Sec. of
Labor (1947), jus sanguinis or blood relationship would now become the primary basis of citizenship
by birth (Tecson vs. COMELEC, GR 161434, March 3, 2004).

• Under Sec. 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or
naturalized, become ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Philippines under Sec. 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is
subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippines citizenship of her husband the moment he takes
his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any disqualifications under said Sec.
4. “Ipso Facto” as here use does not mean that all alien wives and all minor children of Philippine
citizens, from the mere fact of relationship, necessary become such citizens also. Those who do not
meet the statutory requirements do not ipso facto become citizens; they must apply for naturalization in
order to acquire such status. Under the second paragraph of Sec. 15, a minor child of a Filipino
naturalized under the law, who was born in the Philippine, becomes ipso facto a citizen of the
Philippines from the time the fact of relationship concurs with the fact of a citizenship of his parent,
and the time when child become a citizen does not depend upon the time that he is able to prove that he
was born in the Philippines(Moya Lim Yao vs Commissioner, 41 SCRA 292).
iii) Loss and Reacquisition
• How may one lose citizenship (C.A. No. 63)?
1. By naturalization in a foreign country.
2. By express renunciation of citizenship.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to the laws or constitution of a foreign country.
4. By serving in the armed forces of an enemy country.
5. By cancellation of certificates of naturalization.
6. By being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s country.

• How may one reacquire citizenship?

1.By direct act of Congress
RA 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003.’ Approved on August 29, 2003
provides that, on taking the oath of allegiance to the public:
a. Natural born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship and
b. Natural born citizens of the Philippines who after the effectively of the said RA become citizens of a
foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship.

2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
By RA 8171 is an act providing for the repatriation of:
a. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and;
b. Natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity.

Repatriation shall be effected by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Phils.
and registration in proper civil registry and in Bureau of Immigration. The Bureau of immigration shall
thereupon cancel the pertinent alien certificate of registration and issue the certificate of identification
as Filipino citizen to the repatriated citizen. It allows the person to recover or return to his original
status before he lost his Philippine citizenship (Bengzon III v. HRET, GR No. 142840, May 7, 2001).

Derivative Citizenship – The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below
eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of the said
RA shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

CASES
• Sec 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be among other
qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under
Art. 5, Sec.1, of the Constitution. Even if he did lose his naturalized American citizenship, such
forfeiture did not and could not have the effect of automatically restoring his citizenship in the
Philippines that he had earlier renounce. At best, what might have happened as a result of a lose of his
naturalized citizenship was that he became a stateless individual. Qualifications for public office are
continuing requirements and must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election or
assumption of office but during the officers entire tenure (Frivaldo vs. Comelec, 174 SCRA 245).

• Under Philippine law, citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by
repatriation. Unlike in naturalization where an alien covets a first-time entry into Philippine political
life, in repatriation the applicant is a former natural-born Filipino who is merely seeking to reacquire
his previous citizenship. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective
public office, and the purpose of the citizenship qualification is none other than to ensure that no alien,
i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern our people and our country or a unit of
territory thereof. The law intended CITIZENSHIP to be a qualification distinct from being a VOTER,
even if being a voter presumes being a citizen first. It also stands to reason that the voter requirement
was included as another qualification (aside from "citizenship"), not to reiterate the need for nationality
but to require that the official be registered as a voter IN THE AREA OR TERRITORY he seeks to
govern. A person may subsequently reacquire, or for that matter lose, his citizenship under any of the
modes recognized by law for the purpose(F rivaldo vs. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727).

• 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 child’s parents reside and continues until the same is
abandoned by acquisition of new domicile (domicile of choice). In the case at bar, petitioner lost his
domicile of origin in Oras by becoming a U.S. citizen after enlisting in the U.S. Navy in 1965.From
then on and until November 10, 2000, when he reacquired Philippine citizenship, petitioner was an
alien without any right to reside in the Philippines save as our immigration laws may have allowed him
to stay as a visitor or as a resident alien. The status of being an alien and a non-resident can be waived
either separately, when one acquires the status of a resident alien before acquiring Philippine
citizenship, or at the same time when one acquires Philippine citizenship. As an alien, an individual
may obtain an immigrant visa under Sec 13 of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1948 and an
Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) and thus waive his status as a non-resident. On the other
hand, he may acquire Philippine citizenship by naturalization under C.A. No. 473, as amended, or, if he
is a former Philippine national, he may reacquire Philippine citizenship by repatriation or by an act of
Congress, in which case he waives not only his status as an alien but also his status as a non-resident
alien (Coquilla vs. Comelec, GR
151914, July 31, 2002).

• Art. IV, Sec. 1 (4) states that citizens are “those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and
upon reaching the age of majority, elect the Philippine citizenship.” A minor who has not had the
opportunity to elect Philippine citizenship, therefore, is still an alien, his father being an alien. It is
illogical that Delfin follow the repatriation of his Filipino mother since he was never a Filipino,
therefore he could not reacquire it. No rule or right (even right of mother to retain custody of a minor
child) should frustrate government's action against violators of immigration laws (Villahermosa vs.
Commissioner, 80 Phil 541).
• There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. These ways of
acquiring citizenship correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the
naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-
born citizen thereof. As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine
citizenship." On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens
through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic
Act No. 530. To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting
Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its promulgation when the court
is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has
dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of any offense or
violation of Government promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the
nation or contrary to any Government announced policies.
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner
provided by law. Commonwealth Act No. 63 (CA No. 63), enumerates the three modes by which
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by repatriation,
and (3) by direct act of Congress.
Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of
initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as
amended. On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is
governed by Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to
reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain qualifications 17 and none of the disqualifications
mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473. Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes
by those who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces; (2) service in the armed
forces of the allied forces in World War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any
other time; (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and (5) political and economic necessity. As
distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply consists of the taking of an
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil
Registry of the place where the person concerned resides or last resided. Under the 1973 Constitution
definition, there were two categories of, Filipino citizens which were not considered natural-born: (1)
those who were naturalized and (2) those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who, upon
reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship. Those "naturalized citizens" were not
considered natural-born obviously because they were not Filipinos at birth and had to perform an act to
acquire Philippine citizenship. Those born of Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution were likewise not considered natural-born because they also had to perform an act to
perfect their Philippine citizenship. The present Constitution, however, now considers those born of
Filipino mothers before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the majority age as natural-born. It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens
under the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born
and (2) those who are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino,
i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is
a natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the absence in said enumeration of a separate category for
persons who, after losing Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear:
as to such persons, they would either be natural- born or naturalized depending on the reasons for the
loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law for the reacquisition thereof
(Bengson vs. HRET, GR 142840. May 7, 2001)

iv) Dual citizenship – RA 9925, RA 7160 Sec. 40

Distinction between dual citizenship from dual allegiance

Dual Citizenship
1. Arises when as a result of the concurrent application of the laws of two or more states, a person
is simultaneously considered a citizen of those states.
2. Involuntary
Dual Allegiance
1. Refer to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes by some positive act, loyalty to
two or more states.
2. Is voluntary and illegal

CASES
• 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. 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 (Art. IV) of our
Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess 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 latter's 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 individual's volition. With respect to dual allegiance, 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." The Court held that in including Sec. 5 Art. IV on citizenship, the concern of the
Constitutional Commission was not on dual citizens per se, but with naturalized citizens who maintain
their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. By filing a certificate of
candidacy when he ran for his present post, Manzano elected Philippine citizenship and in effect
renounced his American citizenship. What the law prohibits is dual allegiance, and not dual citizenship
(Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630).
• The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child
follows the nationality or citizenship 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.
Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome,
Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines
Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Historically, this was a year before the 1935 Constitution
took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution 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 August 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 were deemed to be Philippine citizens. By virtue of the same laws,
Telesforo's daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the
Philippines(Valle s vs. Comelec, GR 137000, August 9, 2000)