Angat vs. Republic, 314 SCRA 438Petition:Petitioner:Gerardo AngatRespondent:Republic of the PhilippinesPonente:J. VitugDate:14 September 1999

Facts:Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural born citizen of the Philippines until he lost his citizenshipby naturalization inthe UnitedStates of America. -11 March 1996 filed before RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272,a petition to regain his Status as a citizen of the Philippines [under CA 63, RA 965 and RA 2630]-30 April 1996 the trial court issued a notice setting the case for initial hearing on-27 January1997 copy received by the Office of the Solicitor General ("OSG"),-13 June 1996 Angat sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 8171motion initially denied by the trial judge, but Angat just filed another motion afterwards, and eventually the court consented.-3 October 1996 on court order, Angat took his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines [pursuant to RA 8171]-4 October 1996, the trial judge issued another order stating, among others, the petitioner is hereby repatriated and declared as citizen of the Republic ofthe Philippines pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171.-19 March 1997, OSG asserted that the petition itself should have been dismissed by the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction because the proper forum for it was theSpecial Committee on Naturalization [pursuant to AO 285, dated22 Aug 1996-22 September 1997 the trial court found merit in the OSGs assertion: xxxxxx xxxWHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the motion to dismiss filed by the Office of the Solicitor General is hereby granted. Theorders of this Court dated September 20,1996 and October 04, 1996 are hereby set aside and the herein petition is ordered DISMISSED on the ground of lack of jurisdictionwithout prejudice to its re-filing before the Special Committee on Naturalization.-13 October 1997 Angat filed motion for reconsideration, questioned the September 1997decision by the trial court: he asserted that his petition was filed on 14 March 1996, monthsbefore theSpecial Committee on Naturalization was supposedly constituted [pursuant to AO 285] the trial judge denied the motion for recon. on 29 Dec 1997.-PD 703: designated the Special Committee on Naturalization as the proper body to process there partitions of Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens, and natural born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship.-Letter of Instruction No. 270 (amended by LOI 491): among others, defined which public officers constituted the Special Committee.Issues:1. At the time the petition [to regain his Status as a citizen of the Philippines] was filed, did the RTC have jurisdiction over repatriation casesfor natural-born Filipinos?

Ruling:1. No. The law in effect at the time the petition was PD 703, and according to PD 703the Special Committee on Naturalization was the proper venue for such a petition, not the RTC.Ratio 1.The important question is, at the time the petition was filed, on 11 March 1996, which of therepatriation laws in effect was/were applicable to the case of the petitioner, Mr. Angat?Pursuant to PD 703, the Special Committee on Naturalization [chaired by the Solicitor General with the Undersecretary of Foreign Affairsand the Director of theNational Intelligence Coordinating Agency as the other members] was the proper body to receive and act on repatriation petitions of natural-born Filipinos, from 5 June 1975 till 27 March 1987, when it was deactivated, "to cease and desist from undertaking any and all proceedings . . . under Letter ofInstruction 270.", by virtue of a Memorandum issued by President Corazon Aquino. This Special Committee was reactivated on 8 June 1995 and was still in effect at the time the petition was filed. SC: The Office of the Solicitor General was right in maintaining that Angat's petition should have been filed with the Committee, aforesaid, and not with the RTC which had no jurisdiction there over. The court's order of 4 October 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire finality nor could be asource of right onthe part of petitioner.On the correctness of the initial basis asserted by the petitioner for his repatriation:It should also be noteworthy that the petition in CaseNo. N-96-03-MK was onefor repatriation, andit was thus incorrect for petitioner to initially invoke Republic Act No. 965 and R.A. No. 2630 since these laws could only apply to persons whohad lost their citizenship by rendering service to, oraccepting commission in, the armed forces of an allied foreign country or the armed forces of the United States of America, a factual matter not alleged in the petition, Parenthetically, under these statutes, the person desiring to re-acquire Philippine citizenship would not even be required to file a petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic ofthe Philippines and to register that fact with the civil registry in the place of his residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.