Tecson Vs.

Comelec
424 SCRA 277 G.R. No. 161434 March 3, 2004

Facts: Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis 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; his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. Granting, petitioner asseverated, that Allan F. Poe was a Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien mother. Petitioner based the allegation of the illegitimate birth of respondent on two assertions - first, Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie Kelley and, second, even if no such prior marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year after the birth of respondent.

Issue: Whether or Not FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen.

Held: It is necessary to take on the matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative father. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in the year 1870, when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate.

But while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a naturalborn 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 misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code.

In Re: Vicente Ching

on January 6, 2013 Legal Profession Admission to the Bar Citizenship Requirement

In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to take his oath. Apparently, Chings father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner, acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant a profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in La Union. The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; that under prevailing jurisprudence, upon reaching the age of majority is construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the 1935 Constitution was in place). Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General recommended that the rule be relaxed due to the special circumstance of Ching. ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyers oath. HELD: No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship. The Supreme Court cannot agree with the recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and its way beyond the allowable 7 year period. The Supreme Court even noted that the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems it cant be extended any further). Chings special circumstances cant be considered. It is not enough that he considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer (was) serving this country. The rules for citizenship are in place. Further, Ching didnt give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess its simply because he never thought hes Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Chings unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.

Republic of the Philippines vs Chuley Lim

on January 6, 2013 Constitutional Law Citizenship Electing Filipino Citizenship In 1999, Chuley Lim filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth certificate with the regional trial court of Lanao del Norte. Her maiden name was Chuley Yu and thats how it appears in all her official records except that in her birth certificate where it appears as Chuley Yo. She said that it was misspelled. The Republic of the Philippines through the local city prosecutor raised the issue of citizenship because it appears that Lims birth certificate shows that she is a Filipino. The prosecutor contends that Lims father was a Chinese; that she acquired her fathers citizenship pursuant to the 1935 Constitution in place when she was born; that she never elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority (she is already 47 years old at that time); that since she is a Chinese, her birth certificate should be amended to reflect that she is a Chinese citizen. Lim contends that she is an illegitimate child hence she is a Filipino. ISSUE: Whether or not Lim is a Chinese citizen. HELD: No. The provision which provides the election of Filipino citizenship applies only to legitimate children. In the case at bar, Lims mother was a Filipino. Lims mother never married the Chinese father of Lim hence Lim did not acquire the Chinese citizenship of her father. What she acquired is the Filipino citizenship of her mother. Therefore, she is a natural born Filipino and she does not need to perform any act to confer on her all the rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship.

G.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007 KILOSBAYAN VS ERMITA

Only natural-born Filipino citizens may be appointed as justice of the Supreme Court Decision of administrative body (Bureau of Immigration) declaring one a natural-born citizen is not binding upon the courts when there are circumstances that entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings F ACTS: This case arose when respondent Gregory S. Ong was appointed by Executive Secretary, in representation of the Office of the President, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Petitioners contended that respondent Ong is a Chinese citizen, born on May 25, 1953 to Chinese parents. They further added that even if it were granted that eleven years after respondent Ong s birth, his father was finally granted Filipino citizenship by naturalization, that, by itself, would not make respondent Ong

a natural-born citizen. For his part, respondent Ong contended that he is a natural-born citizen and presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ declaring him to be such. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Ong is a natural-born Filipino citizen RULING: xxx respondent Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged subsequent recognition of his naturalborn status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial court stating that respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father.The series of events and long string of alleged changes in the nationalities of respondent Ong's ancestors, byvarious births, marriages and deaths, all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings so as to correct the existing records on his birth and citizenship. The chain of evidence would have to show that Dy Guiok Santos, respondent Ong's mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what still appears inthe records of this Court. Respondent Ong has the burden of proving in court his alleged ancestral tree as wellas his citizenship under the time-line of three Constitutions. Until this is done, respondent Ong cannot accept anappointment to this Court as that would be a violation of the Constitution. For this reason, he can be prevented by injunction by doing so.