CHAPTER VIII- CASES

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner

FACTS: This BAR matter concerns the petition of Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave to resume the practice of law. Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine BAR in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attetion for his ailments.He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canadas citizen in May 2004.

 On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act 9225,

petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that day he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.
ISSUE: WON petitioner lost his membership in the

Philippine Bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004.

RULING: By virtue of his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in 2006, petitioner has again met all the qualifications and has none of the disqualificationsfor membership in the bar. He be allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines, conditioned on his retaking the lawyers oath to remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a member of the Philippine Bar.

CIRILO R. VALLES vs. COMELEC and ROSALIND LOPEZ

FACTS: Petitioner filed a disqualification case against respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, in the May 1998 elections for governor of Davao Oriental. Rosalind 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. In 1949, at the age of 15, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines. On June 1952, she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen.

In 1992, she was elected as governor of Davao Oriental.In 1995 she ran for re-election as governor of the same place. Her opponent filed a disqualification, questioning her citizenship. In the May 1998 elections, the citizenship of petitioner was once again raised as an issue. ISSUE: WON private respondent Rosalind Lopez is a Filipino citizen.

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that private respondent is a Filipino citizen and therefore qualified to run for a public office because 1. Her Father is a Filipino citizen and by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen; 2. She was married to a Filipino, thereby making her also a Filipino citizen; and 3. She renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15,1992.

FELISA LEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMMMIGRATION

FACTS: On June 22, 1985 Lee, a Chinese citizen, married Jackson Barra, a Filipino citizen.Claimingto have acquired the citizenship of her husband by virtue of her marriage on the ground that she possessed all the qualifications and non of the disqualifications for naturalization as a Filipino citizen, she applied to the Commissioner of Immigration for cancellation of her alien certificate of registration. On November 2, 1962 the SolGen moved to dismissed the petition on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: WON the court has jurisdiction

RULING: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is no proceeding established by law or the rules for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. OH HEK HOW, petitioner appelle vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant

FACTS: A decision granting his petition as citizen of the Philippines having been rendered on January 16, 1964, petitioner Oh Hek How filed on January 17, 1966, a motion alleging that he had complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 530 and praying that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as such citizzen and issued the corresponding certificate of naturalization. The Government seasonably gave notice of its intention to appeal from the said order of February 9, 1966 and filed its record on appeal.

ISSUE: Whether the taking of an oath of petitioner is valid. RULING: The oath of allegiance taken by petitioner on November 28, 1966 and the certificate of naturalization issued to him in pursuance thereof, as well as the authority given therefore by the lower court are null and void. The order of February 9, had not and up to the present has become final and executory in view of the appeal duly taken by the Government.

EREMES KOOKOORITCHKIN vs. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

FACTS: In August 1941, Eremes kookooritchkin filed with the lower court a petition for naturalization, accompanied with supporting affidavits of two citizens, copy of a declaration of intention sworn in July 1940. The petition was finally granted on 1947.
ISSUE: WON the declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen filed by Eremes Kookooritchkin is invalid and insufficient as a basis for the petition of naturalization.

RULING: The undisputed fact that the petitioner has been continuously residing in the Philippines for about 25 years can be taken as evidence that he is enjoying permanent residence legally. The records leads to the conclusion that petitioner has shown legal residence in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years as required by section 2 of C.A. No. 473.

VICTORINO X. FORNIER vs. COMELEC and RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE, ALSO KNOWN AS FERNANDO POE JR.

FACTS: On December 31, 2003, respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, (hereinafter FPJ), filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Philippines. Petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy on the grounds that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth , according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners.

ISSUE: WON FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen. RULING: The fact of the matter perhaps the most significant consideration is that the 1935 Constitution, the fundamental law prevailing on the day, month and year of birth of respondent FPJ, can never be more explicit than it is. While the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material miisrepresentation.