KAE Ses Jejejejeje

7/23/2019 KAE Ses Jejejejeje

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kae-ses-jejejejeje 1/24

[G.R. No. 153883. January 13, 2004]

REPUBLIC OF !E P!ILIPPINE", petitioner , vs. C!ULE #. LI$, respondent .

% E C I " I O N

#N&RE"'"&NI&GO, J .(

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Courtstemmed from a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court filed by respondent Chule Y. im with the Re!ional Trial Court of anao del"orte# $ranch 4# doc%eted as &p. 'roc. "o. 4()).

*n her petition# respondent claimed that she was born on +ctober ,(# 1(54 in$uru-an# *li!an City. er birth was re!istered in /auswa!an# anao del "orte but

the unicipal Civil Re!istrar of /auswa!an transferred her record of birth to*li!an City. &he alle!ed that both her /auswa!an and *li!an City records of birthhave four erroneous entries# and prays that they be corrected.

The trial court then issued an +rder#12 which reads3

R6+R# findin! the petition to be sufficient in form and substance# let thehearin! of this case be set on 7ecember ,# 1((( before this Court# all of9ustice# Rosario ei!hts# Tubod# *li!an City at 83)0 ocloc% in the afternoon atwhich date# place and time any interested person may appear and show causewhy the petition should not be !ranted.

et this order be published in a newspaper of !eneral circulation in the City of*li!an and the 'rovince of anao del "orte once a wee% for three :); consecutivewee%s at the e<pense of the petitioner.

6urnish copies of this order the +ffice of the &olicitor =eneral at 1)4 >morsolo&t.# e!aspi ?ill.# a%ati City and the +ffice of the ocal Civil Re!istrar of *li!anCity at @ueAon >ve.# 'ala-o# *li!an City.

&+ +R7R7.

7urin! the hearin!# respondent testified thus3

6irst# she claims that her surname Yu was misspelled as Yo. &he has beenusin! Yu in all her school records and in her marria!e certificate. ,2 &he presenteda clearance from the "ational $ureau of *nvesti!ation :"$*;)2 to further show theconsistency in her use of the surname Yu.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/153883.htm#_ftn1








&econd# she claims that her fathers name in her birth record was written asYo 7iu To :Co Tian; when it should have been Yu 7io To :Co Tian;.

Third# her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been6ilipino considerin! that her father and mother never !ot married. +nly her

deceased father was Chinese# while her mother is 6ilipina. &he claims that her bein! a re!istered voter attests to the fact that she is a 6ilipino citiAen.

6inally# it was erroneously indicated in her birth certificate that she was ale!itimate child when she should have been described as ille!itimate considerin!that her parents were never married.

'lacida >nto# respondents mother# testified that she is a 6ilipino citiAen asher parents were both 6ilipinos from Cami!uin. &he added that she and her dau!hters father were never married because the latter had a prior subsistin!marria!e contracted in China.

*n this connection# respondent presented a certification attested by officials of the local civil re!istries of *li!an City and /auswa!an# anao del "orte that thereis no record of marria!e between 'lacida >nto and Yu 7io To from 1(48 to thepresent.

The Republic# throu!h the City 'rosecutor of *li!an City# did not present anyevidence althou!h it actively participated in the proceedin!s by attendin!hearin!s and cross-e<aminin! respondent and her witnesses.

+n 6ebruary ,,# ,000# the trial court !ranted respondents petition and

rendered Bud!ment as follows3

R6+R# the fore!oin! premises considered# to set the records of thepetitioner strai!ht and in their proper perspective# the petition is !ranted and theCivil Re!istrar of *li!an City is directed to ma%e the followin! corrections in thebirth records of the petitioner# to wit3

1. er family name from Y+ to YD

,. er fathers name from Y+ 7* T+ :C+ T*>"; to Y 7*+T+ :C+T*>";D

). er status from le!itimate to ille!itimate by chan!in! Y& to "+ inanswer to the Euestion =*T*>TFD and#

4. er citiAenship from Chinese to 6ilipino.

&+ +R7R7.42





The Republic of the 'hilippines appealed the decision to the Court of >ppeals which affirmed the trial courts decision.52

ence# this petition on the followin! assi!ned errors3

I

T C+RT +6 >''>& RR7 *" +R7R*"= T C+RRCT*+" +6T C*T*G"&*' +6 R&'+"7"T C Y. * 6R+ C*"& T+6**'*"+ 7&'*T T 6>CT T>T R&'+"7"T "?R7+"&TR>T7 >"Y C+'*>"C *T T => R@*R"T&6+R CT*+" +6 C*T*G"&*'.

II

T C+RT +6 >''>& RR7 *" >+*"= R&'+"7"T T+

C+"T*" &*"= R 6>TR& &R"> 7&'*T *T& 6*"7*"= T>TR&'+"7"T *& >" *=*T*>T C*7.H2

To di!ress# it is Bust as well that the Republic did not cite as error respondentsrecourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to effect what indisputably aresubstantial corrections and chan!es in entries in the civil re!ister. To clarify# Rule108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil re!istry. The proceedin!s under said rule mayeither be summary or adversary in nature. *f the correction sou!ht to be made inthe civil re!ister is clerical# then the procedure to be adopted is summary. *f therectification affects the civil status# citiAenship or nationality of a party# it is

deemed substantial# and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. This is our rulin! in Republic v. Valencia2 where we held that even substantial errors in acivil re!istry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108provided the parties a!!rieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriateadversary proceedin!. >n appropriate adversary suit or proceedin! is one wherethe trial court has conducted proceedin!s where all relevant facts have been fullyand properly developed# where opposin! counsel have been !iven opportunity todemolish the opposite partys case# and where the evidence has been thorou!hlywei!hed and considered.82

>s li%ewise observed by the Court of >ppeals# we ta%e it that the Republics

failure to cite this error amounts to a reco!nition that this case properly fallsunder Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court considerin! that the proceedin!can be appropriately classified as adversarial.

*nstead# in its first assi!nment of error# the Republic avers that respondentdid not comply with the constitutional reEuirement of electin! 6ilipino citiAenshipwhen she reached the a!e of maBority. *t cites >rticle *?# &ection 1:); of the 1()5Constitution# which provides that the citiAenship of a le!itimate child born of a











6ilipino mother and an alien father followed the citiAenship of the father# unless#upon reachin! the a!e of maBority# the child elected 'hilippine citiAenship.(2 i%ewise# the Republic invo%es the provision in &ection 1 of Commonwealth

>ct "o. H,5# that le!itimate children born of 6ilipino mothers may elect 'hilippinecitiAenship by e<pressin! such intention in a statement to be si!ned and sworn to

by the party concerned before any officer authoriAed to administer oaths# andshall be filed with the nearest civil re!istry. The said party shall accompany theaforesaid statement with the oath of alle!iance to the Constitution and the=overnment of the 'hilippines.102

'lainly# the above constitutional and statutory reEuirements of electin!6ilipino citiAenship apply only to le!itimate children. These do not apply in thecase of respondent who was concededly an ille!itimate child# considerin! thather Chinese father and 6ilipino mother were never married. >s such# she was notreEuired to comply with said constitutional and statutory reEuirements to becomea 6ilipino citiAen. $y bein! an ille!itimate child of a 6ilipino mother# respondent

automatically became a 6ilipino upon birth. &tated differently# she is a 6ilipinosince birth without havin! to elect 6ilipino citiAenship when she reached the a!eof maBority.

*n Chin!# Re3 >pplication for >dmission to the $ar#112 citin! *n re 6lorencioallare#1,2 we held3

steban allare# natural child of >na allare# a 6ilipina# is therefore himself a6ilipino# and no other act would be necessary to confer on him all the ri!hts andprivile!es attached to 'hilippine citiAenship :U.S. vs. Ong Tianse# ,( 'hil.)),D Santos Co vs. Government of the Philippine Islands# 4, 'hil. 54)D Serra vs.

Republic # -4,,)# ay 1,# 1(5,D S !uimsuan vs. Republic # -4H()# 6eb. 1H#1(5)D Pitallano vs. Republic # -5111# 9une ,8# 1(54;. "either could any act beta%en on the erroneous belief that he is a non-6ilipino divest him of thecitiAenship privile!es to which he is ri!htfully entitled. 1)2

This notwithstandin!# the records show that respondent elected 6ilipinocitiAenship when she reached the a!e of maBority. &he re!istered as a voter inisamis +riental when she was 18 years old. 142 The e<ercise of the ri!ht of suffra!e and the participation in election e<ercises constitute a positive act of election of 'hilippine citiAenship.152

*n its second assi!nment of error# the Republic assails the Court of >ppealsdecision in allowin! respondent to use her fathers surname despite its findin!that she is ille!itimate.

The Republics submission is misleadin!. The Court of >ppeals did not allowrespondent to use her fathers surname. hat it did allow was the correction of her fathers misspelled surname which she has been usin! ever since she can

















remember. *n this re!ard# respondent does not need a court pronouncement for her to use her fathers surname.

e a!ree with the Court of >ppeals when it held3

6irstly# 'etitioner-appellee is now 4 years old. To bar her at this time from usin!her fathers surname which she has used for four decades without any %nownobBection from anybody# would only sow confusion. Concededly# one of thereasons allowed for chan!in! ones name or surname is to avoid confusion.

&econdly# under &ec. 1 of Commonwealth >ct "o. 14,# the law re!ulatin! theuse of aliases# a person is allowed to use a name by which he has been %nownsince childhood.

Thirdly# the &upreme Court has already addressed the same issue. *n Pabellar v.Rep. of the Phils.#1H2 we held3

&ection 1 of Commonwealth >ct "o. 14,# which re!ulates the use of aliases#allows a person to use a name by which he has been %nown since childhood:im o% >lbano v. Republic# 104 'hil. (5D 'eople v. y 9ui 'io# 10, 'hil. H(DRepublic v. Taada# infra;. ven le!itimate children cannot enBoin the ille!itimatechildren of their father from usin! his surname :7e ?alencia v. Rodri!ueA# 84 'hil.,,,;.12

hile Budicial authority is reEuired for a chan!e of name or surname# 182 thereis no such reEuirement for the continued use of a surname which a person hasalready been usin! since childhood.1(2

The doctrine that disallows such chan!e of name as would !ive the falseimpression of family relationship remains valid but only to the e<tent that theproposed chan!e of name would in !reat probability cause preBudice or futuremischief to the family whose surname it is that is involved or to the community in!eneral.,02 *n this case# the Republic has not shown that the Yu family in Chinawould probably be preBudiced or be the obBect of future mischief. *n respondentscase# the chan!e in the surname that she has been usin! for 40 years wouldeven avoid confusion to her community in !eneral.

)!EREFORE# in view of the fore!oin!# the instant petition for review is

7"*7. The decision of the Court of >ppeals in C>-=.R. C? "o. H88() dateday ,(# ,00,# is >66*R7.>ccordin!ly# the Civil Re!istrar of *li!an City is7*RCT7 to ma%e the followin! corrections in the birth record of respondentChule Y. im# to wit3

1. er family name from Y+ to YD

,. er fathers name from Y+ 7* T+ :C+ T*>"; to Y 7*+T+ :C+ T*>";D













). er status from le!itimate to ille!itimate by chan!in! Y& to "+ in answer tothe Euestion =*T*>TFD and#

4. er citiAenship from Chinese to 6ilipino.

"O OR%ERE%.

G.R. No. 1*1434 $ar+ 3, 2004$&RI& JE&NEE C. EC"ON an- FELI B. %E"I%ERIO, JR. vs.CO$ELEC,FPJ an- /ICORINO . FORNIER,

G.R. No. 1*1*34 $ar+ 3, 2004OILO &NONIO /ELE vs.FPJ

G. R. No. 1*1824 $ar+ 3, 2004/ICORINO . FORNIER, vs. !ON. CO$$I""ION ON ELECION" an- FPJ

6acts3'etitioners sou!ht for respondent 'oeIs disEualification in the presidentialelections for havin! alle!edly misrepresented material facts in his :'oeIs;certificate of candidacy by claimin! that he is a natural 6ilipino citiAen despite hisparents both bein! forei!ners. Comelec dismissed the petition# holdin! that 'oewas a 6ilipino CitiAen. 'etitioners assail the Burisdiction of the Comelec#

contendin! that only the &upreme Court may resolve the basic issue on the caseunder >rticle ?**# &ection 4# para!raph # of the 1(8 Constitution.*ssue3hether or not it is the &upreme Court which had Burisdiction.hether or not Comelec committed !rave abuse of discretion in holdin! that 'oewas a 6ilipino citiAen.Rulin!3

1.; The &upreme Court had no Burisdiction on Euestions re!ardin! JEualification of acandidateK for the presidency or vice-presidency before the elections are held.LRules of the 'residential lectoral TribunalL in connection with &ection 4#para!raph # of the 1(8 Constitution# refers to JcontestsK relatin! to the election#

returns and Eualifications of the L'residentL or L?ice-'residentL# of the 'hilippineswhich the &upreme Court may ta%e co!niAance# and not of LcandidatesL for'resident or ?ice-'resident before the elections.

,.; Comelec committed no !rave abuse of discretion in holdin! 'oe as a 6ilipinoCitiAen.



The 1()5 Constitution on CitiAenship# the prevailin! fundamental law onrespondentIs birth# provided that amon! the citiAens of the 'hilippines are Lthosewhose fathers are citiAens of the 'hilippines.L

Tracin! respondentIs paternal linea!e# his !randfather orenAo# as evidenced bythe latterIs death certificate was identified as a 6ilipino CitiAen. is citiAenshipwas also drawn from the presumption that havin! died in 1(54 at the a!e of 84#orenAo would have been born in 1(80. *n the absence of any other evidence#orenAoIs place of residence upon his death in 1(54 was presumed to be theplace of residence prior his death# such that orenAo 'ou would have benefitedfrom the Len masse 6ilipiniAationL that the 'hilippine $ill had effected in 1(0,.$ein! so# orenAoIs citiAenship would have e<tended to his son# >llan---respondentIs father.

Respondent# havin! been ac%nowled!ed as >llanIs son to $essie# thou!h an

>merican citiAen# was a 6ilipino citiAen by virtue of paternal filiation as evidencedby the respondentIs birth certificate. The 1()5 Constitution on citiAenship did notma%e a distinction on the le!itimacy or ille!itimacy of the child# thus# thealle!ation of bi!amous marria!e and the alle!ation that respondent was bornonly before the assailed marria!e had no bearin! on respondentIs citiAenship inview of the established paternal filiation evidenced by the public documentspresented.

$ut while the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively thatrespondent 6'9 is a natural-born citiAen of the 'hilippines# the evidence on handstill would preponderate in his favor enou!h to hold that he cannot be held !uilty

of havin! made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy inviolation of &ection 8# in relation to &ection 4 of the +mnibus lection Code.

andmar% Case3 *n Re allare# >.. "o. 5)) &eptember 1,# 1(4 :Case 7i!est;In Re Mallare# ".#. $o. %&& September '() '*+,

6acts

allareIs father steban was the ille!itimate child of a Chinese father anda 6ilipino mother# and believed himself to be Chinese. allare became a lawyer#

but his admission to the bar was revo%ed because his citiAenship wasEuestionable.

*ssue

*s allare a 6ilipino citiAenF

Rulin!



The &upreme Court reversed the revocation after findin! that steban was a6ilipino because his mother was not married to his Chinese father. 6urthermore#when allare came of a!e# he re!istered as a voter and e<ercised his ri!ht ofsuffra!e. The Court considered these acts to be enou!h to show that allare had

elected 6ilipino citiAenship# without needin! any formal declaration on his part.

Bar $ar No. 14, O+or 1, 1R( &67+a7on or &-97::7on o P7677n Bar ;:./7+n %. C7n<, 77onr

Fa+:(

?icente 7. Chin!# a le!itimate child of a 6ilipino mother and an alien Chinesefather# was born on >pril 11# 1(H4 in Tubao a nion# under the 1()5Constitution. e has resided in the 'hilippines

e completed his $achelor of aws at & in $a!uio on 9uly 1((8# filed anapplication to ta%e the 1((8 $ar <amination.The Resolution in this Court# he was allowed to ta%e the bar if he submit to theCourt the followin! documents as proof of his 'hilippine CitiAenship3 1. Certification issued by the 'RC $oard of >ccountancy that Chin! is a certifiedaccountantD ,. ?oter Certification issued C+C in Tubao a nion showin! that Chin! is

a re!istered voter of his placeD and ). Certification showin! that Chin! was elected as member of the &an!!unian!$ayan of Tubao# a nion+n >pril 5# 1(((# Chin! was one of the bar passers. The oath ta%in! ceremonywas scheduled on ay 5# 1(((.$ecause of his Euestionable status of Chin!Ms citiAenship# he was not allowed tota%e oath.e was reEuired to submit further proof of his citiAenship.The +ffice of the &olicitor =eneral was reEuired to file a comment on Chin!Mspetition for admission to the 'hilippine $ar.*n his report3

1. Chin!# under the 1()5 Constitution# was a Chinese citiAen and continue to beso# unless upon reachin! the a!e of maBority he elected 'hilippine citiAenship#under the compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth >ct "o. ,H5 Lan actprovidin! for the manner in which the option to elect 'hilippine citiAenship shallbe declared by a person whose mother is a 6ilipino citiAenL,. e pointed out the Chin! has not formally elected 'hilippine citiAenship# and ifever he does# it would already be beyond the Lreasonable timeL allowed by thepresent Burisprudence.



I::u(

hether or not he has elected 'hilippine citiAenship within La reasonable timeL.

Ru67n<:(

1. "o. Chin!# despite the special circumstances# failed to elect 'hilippinecitiAenship within a reasonable time. The reasonable time means that theelection should be made within ) years from Lupon reachin! the a!e of maBorityL#which is ,1 years old. *nstead# he elected 'hilippine citiAenship 14 years afterreachin! the a!e of maBority which the court considered not within the reasonabletime. Chin! offered no reason why he delayed his election of 'hilippinecitiAenship# as procedure in electin! 'hilippine citiAenship is not a tedious andpainsta%in! process. >ll that is reEuired is an affidavit of election of 'hilippine

citiAenship and file the same with the nearest civil re!istry.

CO ;:. !REFa+:( The RT declared that respondent 9ose +n!# 9r. is a natural born6ilipino citiAen and a resident of aoan!# "orthern &amar for votin!purposes. The con!ressional election for the second district of"orthern&amar was held. >mon! the candidates who vied for theposition of representative in the second le!islativedistrict are the

petitioners# &i<to $alinEuit and >ntonio Co and the private respondent# 9ose +n!#9r. Respondent+n! was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of"orthern &amar. The petitioners filed election protests on the !rounds that9ose +n!# 9r. is not a natural born citiAen of the'hilippines and not a residentof the second district of "orthern &amar.I::u(hether or not 9ose +n!# 9r. is a citiAen of the 'hilippines.!6-( Yes. *n the year 18(5# the private respondentIs !randfather#+n! Te# arrived in the 'hi lippines fromChina and established his residencein the municipality of aoan!# &amar. The father of the private respondent# 9ose

+n! Chuan was born in China in 1(05 but was brou!ht by +n! Te to &amar inthe year 1(15# he filed withthe court an application for naturaliAation and wasdeclared a 6ilipino citiAen.*n 1(84# the private respondent married a 6ilipinanamed 7esiree im. 6or the elections of 1(84 and1(8H# 9ose +n!# 9r. re!isteredhimself as a voter of aoan!# &amar# and voted there durin!those elections.nder the 1() Constitution# those born of 6ilipino fathers andthose born of 6ilipino mothers with analien father were placed on eEual footin!.They were both considered as natural born citiAens. $esides#



privaterespon dent d id more than mere ly e<erc ise h isr i!ht o f su f f ra!e. e hasestab l i shed h is l i fe he re in the'hilippines.+n the issue of residence# it isnot reEuired that a person should have a house in order to establish hisresidenceand domicile. *t is enou!h that he should live in the municipality or in a rented

house or in that of afriend or relative. To reEuire him to own property in order to be eli!ible torun for Con!ress would be tantamountto a property Eualification. The Constitution onlyreEuires that the candidate meet the a!e# citiAenship# votin!and residencereEuirements

B&LG&$ELO C&BILING $&, FELIC&BILING $&,JR., and/&LERI&NO C&BILING$&,'etitioners#

-versus-

CO$$I""IONER &LIPIO F.FERN&N%E, JR., &""OCI&ECO$$I""IONER &R!EL B.C&RONOG&N, &""OCI&ECO$$I""IONER JO"E %L.C&BOC!&N, &""OCI&ECO$$I""IONER EO%ORO B.%EL&R$ENE &N% &""OCI&ECO$$I""IONER FR&N=LIN .LI&U&, 7n 7r +aa+77: a:Ca7r9an an- $9r: o Boar- o Co997::7onr: >Burauo I997<ra7on?, an- $& G.C&R&L#Respondents.

G.R. No. 183133

Pr:n( C+R+">#C.- .#Chairperson#?>&C+# 9R.#">CR>#N+">R7+-7 C>&TR+# and'RG# --.

'romul!ated3 9uly ,H# ,010

<-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<



% E C I " I O N PERE# J .3

&hould children born under the 1()5 Constitution of a 6ilipino mother andan alien father# who e<ecuted an affidavit of election of 'hilippine citiAenship andtoo% their oath of alle!iance to the !overnment upon reachin! the a!e of maBority#but who failed to immediately file the documents of election with the nearest civilre!istry# be considered forei!n nationals subBect to deportation as undocumentedaliens for failure to obtain alien certificates of re!istrationF

'ositioned upon the facts of this case# the Euestion is translated into the

inEuiry whether or not the omission ne!ates their ri!hts to 6ilipino citiAenship aschildren of a 6ilipino mother# and erase the years lived and spent as 6ilipinos.

The resolution of these Euestions would si!nificantly mar% a difference inthe lives of herein petitioners.

The Facts

$al!amelo Cabilin! a :$al!amelo;# 6eli< Cabilin! a# 9r. :6eli<# 9r.;#

?aleriano Cabilin! a :?aleriano;# echi >nn a :echi >nn;# >rceli a :>rceli;#"icolas a :"icolas;# and *sidro a :*sidro; are the children of 6eli< :Yao /on!;a#12 a Taiwanese# and 7olores &illona Cabilin!# a 6ilipina. ,2

Records reveal that petitioners 6eli<# 9r.# $al!amelo and ?aleriano were all

born under ae!is of the 1()5 'hilippine Constitution in the years 1(48# 1(51# and1(5# respectively.)2

They were all raised in the 'hilippines and have resided in this country for

almost si<ty :H0; yearsD they spent their whole lives# studied and received their primary and secondary education in the countryD they do not spea% nor understand the Chinese lan!ua!e# have not set foot in Taiwan# and do not %nowany relative of their fatherD they have not even traveled abroadD and they havealready raised their respective families in the 'hilippines. 42

7urin! their a!e of minority# they secured from the $ureau of *mmi!ration

their >lien Certificates of Re!istration :>CRs;. 52

*mmediately upon reachin! the a!e of twenty-one# they claimed 'hilippine

citiAenship in accordance with &ection 1:4;# >rticle *?# of the 1()5 Constitution#which provides that :t;hose whose mothers are citiAens of the 'hilippines and#upon reachin! the a!e of maBority# elect 'hilippine citiAenship are citiAens of the'hilippines. Thus# on 15 >u!ust 1(H(# 6eli<# 9r. e<ecuted his affidavit of electionof 'hilippine citiAenship and too% his oath of alle!iance before then 9ud!e 9ose

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183133.htm#_ftn1












. =onAaleA# unicipal 9ud!e# &uri!ao# &uri!ao del "orte.H2 +n 14 9anuary1(,# $al!amelo did the same before >tty. 'atrocinio C. 6iloteo# "otary'ublic# &uri!ao City# &uri!ao del "orte.2 *n 1(8# ?aleriano too% his oath of alle!iance before then 9ud!e &alvador C. &erin!# City Court of &uri!ao City# thefact of which the latter attested to in his >ffidavit of arch ,005. 82

avin! ta%en their oath of alle!iance as 'hilippine citiAens# petitioners#however# failed to have the necessary documents re!istered in the civil re!istryas reEuired under &ection 1 of Commonwealth >ct "o. H,5 "n "ct Providing the#anner in /hich the Option to 0lect Philippine Citi1enship shall be 2eclared b aPerson /hose #other is a 3ilipino Citi1en4. *t was only on , 9uly ,005 or morethan thirty :)0; years after they elected 'hilippine citiAenship that $al!amelo and6eli<# 9r. did so.(2 +n the other hand# there is no showin! that ?aleriano compliedwith the re!istration reEuirement.

*ndividual certifications102 all dated ) 9anuary ,005 issued by the +ffice of

the City lection +fficer# Commission on lections# &uri!ao City# show that all of

them are re!istered voters of 5aranga ashin!ton# 'recinct "o. 0015> since9une 1((# and that records on previous re!istrations are no lon!er availablebecause of the mandatory !eneral re!istration every ten :10; years. oreover#aside from e<ercisin! their ri!ht of suffra!e# $al!amelo is one of theincumbent 5aranga 6aga/ads in 5aranga ashin!ton# &uri!aoCity.112

Records further reveal that echi >nn and >rceli were born also in &uri!ao City in1(5)1,2 and 1(5(#1)2 respectively. The +ffice of the City Civil Re!istrar issued aCertification to the effect that the documents showin! that >rceli elected'hilippine citiAenship on , 9anuary 1(8H were re!istered in its +ffice on 46ebruary 1(8H. owever# no other supportin! documents appear to show thatechi >nn initially obtained an >CR nor that she subseEuently elected 'hilippine

citiAenship upon reachin! the a!e of maBority. i%ewise# no document e<ists thatwill provide information on the citiAenship of "icolas and *sidro.

The Complaint +n 1H 6ebruary ,004# the $ureau of *mmi!ration received the Complaint-

>ffidavit142 of a certain at =. Catral :r. Catral;# alle!in! that 6eli< :Yao /on!;a and his seven :; children are undesirable and overstayin! aliens. r. Catral#however# did not participate in the proceedin!s# and the a family could not butbelieve that the complaint a!ainst them was politically motivated because theystron!ly supported a candidate in &uri!ao City in the ,004 "ational and ocallections.152

+n ( "ovember ,004# the e!al 7epartment of the $ureau of *mmi!ration

char!ed them for violation of &ections ):a;:;1H2 and 45:e;12 of Commonwealth >ct "o. H1)# otherwise %nown as the Philippine Immigration "ct of '*,7) asamended. The Char!e &heet182 doc%eted as $&*-7.C. "o. >66-04-54 :+C-&T6-04-0(O,)-141H; reads# in part3
































That Respondents < < <# all Chinese nationals# failed andcontinuously failed to present any valid document to show their respective status in the 'hilippines. They li%ewise failed to producedocuments to show their election of 'hilippines :sic; citiAenship#hence# undocumented and overstayin! forei!n nationals in the

country. That respondents# bein! aliens# misrepresent themselves as

'hilippine citiAens in order to evade the reEuirements of theimmi!ration laws.

Ruling of the Board of Commissioners, Bureau of Immigration

>fter 6eli< a and his seven :; children were afforded the opportunity torefute the alle!ations# the $oard of Commissioners :$oard; of the $ureau of *mmi!ration :$*;# composed of the public respondents# rendered a 9ud!ment

dated , 6ebruary ,005 findin! that 6eli< a and his children violatedCommonwealth >ct "o. H1)# &ections ):a;:; and 45:e; in relation to $*emorandum +rder "os. >77-01-0)1 and >77-01-0)5 dated H and ,, >u!ust,001# respectively.1(2

The $oard ruled that since they elected 'hilippine citiAenship after the

enactment of Commonwealth >ct "o. H,5# which was approved on 9une1(41) they were !overned by the followin! rules and re!ulations3

1. &ection 1 of Commonwealth >ct "o. H,5# providin! that the election of

'hilippine citiAenship embodied in a statement sworn before any officer

authoriAed to administer oaths and the oath of alle!iance shall be filed with thenearest civil re!istryD,02 and Commission of *mmi!ration and 7eportation :C*7#now $ureau of *mmi!ration $*2; Circular dated 1, >pril 1(54#,12 detailin! theprocedural reEuirements in the re!istration of the election of 'hilippinecitiAenship.

,. emorandum +rder dated 18 >u!ust 1(5H,,2 of the C*7# reEuirin! the

filin! of a petition for the cancellation of their alien certificate of re!istration withthe C*7# in view of their election of 'hilippine citiAenshipD

). 7epartment of 9ustice :7+9; +pinion "o. 18,# 1( >u!ust 1(8,D and

7+9 =uidelines# , arch 1(85# reEuirin! that the records of the proceedin!s beforwarded to the inistry :now the 7epartment; of 9ustice for final determinationand review.,)2

>s re!ards the documentation of aliens in the 'hilippines# >dministrative

+rder "o. 1-() of the $ureau of *mmi!ration,42 reEuires that >CR# -series# beissued to forei!n nationals who apply for initial re!istration# fin!er printin! andissuance of an >CR in accordance with the >lien Re!istration >ct of 1(50.

















,52 >ccordin! to public respondents# any forei!n national found in possession of an >CR other than the -series shall be considered improperly documentedaliens and may be proceeded a!ainst in accordance with the *mmi!ration >ct of 1(40 or the >lien Re!istration >ct of 1(50# as amended. ,H2

&upposedly for failure to comply with the procedure to prove a valid claimto 'hilippine citiAenship via election proceedin!s# public respondents concludedthat 6eli<# 9r. $al!amelo# >rceli# ?aleriano and echi >nn are un-o+u9n-an-@or 79ror6y -o+u9n- a67n:.,2

"icolas and *sidro# on the other hand# did not submit any document to

support their claim that they are 'hilippine citiAens. "either did they present anyevidence to show that they are properly documented aliens. 6or these reasons#public respondents li%ewise deemed them un-o+u9n- an-@or 79ror6y-o+u9n- a67n:.,82

The dispositive portion

,(2

of the 9ud!ment of , 6ebruary ,005 reads31. &ubBect to the submission of appropriateclearances# :u99ary -ora7on of 6eli< :Yao /on!; a#6eli< a# 9r.# $al!amelo a# ?aleriano a# echi >nn a#"icolas a# >rceli a and *sidro a# Taiwanese Chinese2#under C.>. "o. H1)# &ections ):a;:;# 45:e; and )8 in relationto $* .+. "os. >77-01-0)1 and >77-01-0)5 dated H and ,,

>u!ust ,001# respectivelyD

,. I::uan+ o a Aarran o -ora7on a!ainst 6eli< :Yao

/on!; a# 6eli< a# 9r.# $al!amelo a# ?aleriano a# echi >nn a# "icolas a# >rceli a and *sidro a under C.>. "o.H1)# &ection ):a;D

). In+6u:7on o na9: of 6eli< :Yao /on!; a# 6eli< a#9r.# $al!amelo a# ?aleriano a# echi >nn a# "icolas a#

>rceli a and *sidro a 7n I997<ra7on B6a+67:D and

4. E+6u:7on ro9 P7677n: of 6eli< :Yao /on!; a#6eli< a# 9r.# $al!amelo a# ?aleriano a# echi >nn a#"icolas a# >rceli a and *sidro a under C.>. "o. H1)#&ection ,(:a;:15;. 0mphasis supplied.4

*n its Resolution)02 of 8 >pril ,005# public respondents partially

reconsidered their 9ud!ment of , 6ebruary ,005. They were convinced that















>rceli is an immi!rant under Commonwealth >ct "o. H1)# &ection 1):!;.)12 owever# they denied the otion for Reconsideration with respect to 6eli< aand the rest of his children. ),2

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

+n ) ay ,005# only $al!amelo# 6eli<# 9r.# and ?aleriano filed the Petitionfor Certiorari under Rule H5 of the 1(( Rules of Civil 'rocedure before the Courtof >ppeals# which was doc%eted as C>'=.R. &' "o. 8(5),. They sou!ht thenullification of the issuances of the public respondents# to wit3 :1; the 9ud!mentdated , 6ebruary ,005# orderin! the summary deportation of the petitioners#issuance of a warrant of deportation a!ainst them# inclusion of their names in the*mmi!ration $lac%list# and e<clusion of the petitioners from the 'hilippinesD and:,; the Resolution dated 8 >pril ,005# denyin! the petitioners otion for Reconsideration.

+n ,( >u!ust ,00# the Court of >ppeals dismissed the petition ))2 after

findin! that the petitioners failed to comply with the e<actin! standards of the lawprovidin! for the procedure and conditions for their continued stay inthe 'hilippines either as aliens or as its nationals.)42

+n ,( ay ,008# it issued a Resolution )52 denyin! the petitioners otion

for Reconsideration dated ,0 &eptember ,00.To reiterate# a persons continued and uninterrupted sta in

the Philippines) his being a registered voter or an elected public

official cannot vest in him Philippine citi1enship as the la/ specificall las do/n the re8uirements for ac8uisition of Philippineciti1enship b election. The prescribed procedure in electin!'hilippine citiAenship is certainly not a tedious and painsta%in!process. >ll that is reEuired of the elector is to e<ecute an affidavitof election of 'hilippine citiAenship and# thereafter# file the samewith the nearest civil re!istry. The constitutional mandateconcernin! citiAenship must be adhered to strictly. 'hilippinecitiAenship can never be treated li%e a commodity that can beclaimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. +ne whois privile!ed to elect 'hilippine citiAenship has only an inchoate

ri!ht to such citiAenship. >s such# he should avail of the ri!ht withfervor# enthusiasm and promptitude.)H2

Our Ruling















The 1()5 Constitution declares as citiAens of the 'hilippines those whosemothers are citiAens of the 'hilippines and elect 'hilippine citiAenship uponreachin! the a!e of maBority. The mandate states3

&ection 1. The followin! are citiAens of the 'hilippines3

:1; <<<D < < < < :4; Those whose mothers are citiAens of the 'hilippines and#upon reachin! the a!e of maBority# elect 'hilippinecitiAenship.)2

*n 1(41# Commonwealth >ct "o. H,5 was enacted. *t laid down the

manner of electin! 'hilippine citiAenship# to wit3

&ection 1. The option to elect 'hilippine citiAenship inaccordance with subsection :4;# &ection 1# >rticle *?# of theConstitution shall be e<pressed in a statement to be si!ned andsworn to by the party concerned before any officer authoriAed toadminister oaths# and shall be filed with the nearest civilre!istry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statementwith the oath of alle!iance to the Constitution and the =overnmentof the 'hilippines. The statutory formalities of electin! 'hilippine citiAenship are3 :1; a

statement of election under oathD :,; an oath of alle!iance to the Constitution and

=overnment of the'hilippinesD and :); re!istration of the statement of electionand of the oath with the nearest civil re!istry. *n Re9"pplication for "dmission to the Philippine 5ar) Vicente 2. Ching #)82 wedetermined the meanin! of the period of election described by phrase uponreachin! the a!e of maBority. +ur references were the Civil Code of the 'hilippines# the opinions of the &ecretary of 9ustice# and the case of Cueco v.Secretar of -ustice.)(2 e pronounced3

< < < T2he 1()5 Constitution and C.>. "o. H,5 did not prescribe atime period within which the election of 'hilippine citiAenship shouldbe made. The 1()5 Charter only provides that the election shouldbe made upon reachin! the a!e of maBority. The a!e of maBoritythen commenced upon reachin! twenty-one :,1; years.402 *n theopinions of the &ecretary of 9ustice on cases involvin! the validityof election of 'hilippine citiAenship# this dilemma was resolved bybasin! the time period on the decisions of this Court prior to theeffectivity of the 1()5 Constitution. *n these decisions# the proper period for electin! 'hilippine citiAenship was# in turn# based on the











pronouncements of the 7epartment of &tate of the nited &tates=overnment to the effect that the election should be made within areasonable time after attainin! the a!e of maBority.412 The phrasereasonable time has been interpreted to mean that the electionsshould be made within three :); years from reachin! the a!e of

maBority.4,2

owever# we held in Cue:n;co vs. Secretar of -ustice)4)2 that the three :); year period is not an infle<ible rule. e said3

*t is true that this clause has been construed tomean a reasonable time after reachin! the a!e of maBority# and that the &ecretary of 9ustice has ruledthat three :); years is the reasonable time to elect'hilippine citiAenship under the constitutionalprovision adverted to above# which period may bee<tended under certain circumstances# as when theperson concerned has always considered himself a

6ilipino. owever# we cautioned in Cue:n;co that the e<tension of the optionto elect 'hilippine citiAenship is not indefinite.

Re!ardless of the fore!oin!# petitioner wasborn on 6ebruary 1H# 1(,). e became of a!eon 6ebruary 1H# 1(44. is election of citiAenship wasmade on ay 15# 1(51# when he was over twenty-ei!ht :,8; years of a!e# or over seven :; years after he had reached the a!e of maBority. *t is clear that

said election has not been made upon reachin! thea!e of maBority.442

e reiterated the above rulin! in Go) Sr. v. Ramos)452 a case in which we

adopted the findin!s of the appellate court that the father of the petitioner# whosecitiAenship was in Euestion# failed to elect 'hilippine citiAenship within thereasonable period of three :); years upon reachin! the a!e of maBorityD and thatthe belated submission to the local civil re!istry of the affidavit of election andoath of alle!iance < < < was defective because the affidavit of election wase<ecuted after the oath of alle!iance# and the delay of several years before their filin! with the proper office was not satisfactorily e<plained. 4H2

*n both cases# we ruled a!ainst the petitioners because they belatedlycomplied with all the reEuirements. The acts of election and their re!istration withthe nearest civil re!istry were all done beyond the reasonable period of threeyears upon reachin! the a!e of maBority.

The instant case presents a different factual settin!. 'etitioners complied

with the first and second reEuirements upon reachin! the a!e of maBority. *t was
















only the re!istration of the documents of election with the civil re!istry that wasbelatedly done.

e rule that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners# the ri!ht to elect

'hilippine citiAenship has not been lost and they should be allowed to complete

the statutory reEuirements for such election. &uch conclusion# contrary to the findin! of the Court of >ppeals# is in line

with our decisions in In Re93lorencio #allare#42 Co v. 0lectoral Tribunal of the<ouse of Representatives#482 and Re9"pplication for "dmission to the Philippine5ar) Vicente 2. Ching .4(2

*n #allare) stebans e<ercise of the ri!ht of suffra!e when he came of a!e

was deemed to be a positive act of election of 'hilippine citiAenship. 502 The Courtof >ppeals# however# said that the case cannot support herein petitioners cause#pointin! out that# unli%e petitioner# steban is a natural child of a 6ilipina# hence#

no other act would be necessary to confer on him the ri!hts and privile!es of a6ilipino citiAen#512 and that steban was born in 1(,( 5,2 prior to the adoption of the 1()5 Constitution and the enactment of Commonwealth >ct "o. H,5. 5)2

*n the Co case# 9ose +n!# 9r. did more than e<ercise his ri!ht of suffra!e#

as he established his life here in the 'hilippines.542 >!ain# such circumstance#while similar to that of herein petitioners# was not appreciated because it wasruled that any election of 'hilippine citiAenship on the part of +n! would haveresulted in absurdity# because the law itself had already elected 'hilippinecitiAenship for him552 as# apparently# while he was still a minor# a certificate of naturaliAation was issued to his father.5H2

*n Ching # it may be recalled that we denied his application for admission tothe 'hilippine $ar because# in his case# all the reEuirements# to wit3 :1; astatement of election under oathD :,; an oath of alle!iance to the Constitution and=overnment of the 'hilippinesD and :); re!istration of the statement of electionand of the oath with the nearest civil re!istry were complied with only fourteen:14; years after he reached the a!e of maBority. Chin! offered no reason for thelate election of 'hilippine citiAenship.52

*n all# the Court of >ppeals found the petitioners ar!ument of !ood faith

and informal election unacceptable and held3

Their reliance in the rulin! contained in Re9"pplication for "dmission to the Philippine 5ar) Vicente 2. Ching # which wasdecided on 1 +ctober 1(((2# is obviously flawed. *t bears emphasisthat the &upreme Court# in said case# did not adopt the doctrine laiddown in In Re9 3lorencio #allare. +n the contrary# the &upremeCourt was emphatic in pronouncin! that the special circumstancesinvo%ed by Chin!# i.e.# his continuous and uninterrupted stay in the

























'hilippines and his bein! a certified public accountant# a re!isteredvoter and a former elected public official# cannot vest in him'hilippine citiAenship as the law specifically lays down thereEuirements for acEuisition of 'hilippine citiAenship by election.582

e are not prepared to state that the mere e<ercise of suffra!e# bein!elected public official# continuous and uninterrupted stay in the 'hilippines# andother similar acts showin! e<ercise of 'hilippine citiAenship can ta%e the place of election of citiAenship. hat we now say is that where# as in petitioners case# theelection of citiAenship has in fact been done and documented within theconstitutional and statutory timeframe# the re!istration of the documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts of citiAenship have publicly# consistently# and continuously been done. The actuale<ercise of 'hilippine citiAenship# for over half a century by the herein petitioners#is actual notice to the 'hilippine public which is eEuivalent to formal re!istration

of the election of 'hilippine citiAenship. 6or what purpose is re!istrationF*n Pascua v. Court of "ppeals#5(2 we elucidated the principles of civil law

on re!istration3

To re!ister is to record or annotate. >merican and &panishauthorities are unanimous on the meanin! of the term to re!ister asto enter in a re!isterD to record formally and distinctlyD to enrollD toenter in a list.H02 *n !eneral# re!istration refers to any entry made inthe boo%s of the re!istry# includin! both re!istration in its ordinary

and strict sense# and cancellation# annotation# and even themar!inal notes. *n strict acceptation# it pertains to the entry made inthe re!istry which records solemnly and permanently the ri!ht of ownership and other real ri!hts.H12 &imply stated# re!istration ismade for the purpose of no77+a7on.H,2

>ctual %nowled!e may even have the effect of re!istration as to the

person who has %nowled!e thereof. Thus# i2ts purpose is to !ive notice thereof toall persons :and it; operates as a notice of the deed# contract# or instrument toothers.H)2 >s pertinent is the holdin! that re!istration neither adds to its validitynor converts an invalid instrument into a valid one between the parties. H42 *t laysemphasis on the validity of an unre!istered document.

Comparable Burisprudence may be consulted. *n a contract of partnership# we said that the purpose of re!istration is to

!ive notice to third partiesD that failure to re!ister the contract does not affect theliability of the partnership and of the partners to third personsD and that neither does such failure affect the partnerships Buridical personality. H52 >n unre!istered




















contract of partnership is valid as amon! the partners# so lon! as it has theessential reEuisites# because the main purpose of re!istration is to !ive notice tothird parties# and it can be assumed that the members themselves %new of thecontents of their contract.HH2 The non-re!istration of a deed of donation does notalso affect its validity. Re!istration is not a reEuirement for the validity of the

contract as between the parties# for the effect of re!istration serves chiefly to bindthird persons.H2

i%ewise relevant is the pronouncement that re!istration is not a mode of

acEuirin! a ri!ht. *n an analo!ous case involvin! an unrecorded deed of sale# wereiterated the settled rule that re!istration is not a mode of acEuirin! ownership.

Re!istration does not confer ownership. *t is not a mode of

acEuirin! dominion# but only a means of confirmin! the fact of itse<istence with notice to the world at lar!e. H82

Re!istration# then# is the confirmation of the e<istence of a fact. *n the instantcase# re!istration is the confirmation of election as such election. *t is not there!istration of the act of election# althou!h a valid reEuirement under Commonwealth >ct "o. H,5# that will confer 'hilippine citiAenship on thepetitioners. *t is only a means of confirmin! the fact that citiAenship has beenclaimed.

*ndeed# we even allow the late re!istration of the fact of birth and of

marria!e.H(2 Thus# has it been admitted throu!h e<istin! rules that the latere!istration of the fact of birth of a child does not erase the fact of birth. >lso# thefact of marria!e cannot be declared void solely because of the failure to have the

marria!e certificate re!istered with the desi!nated !overnment a!ency."otably# the petitioners timely too% their oath of alle!iance tothe 'hilippines. This was a serious underta%in!. *t was commitment and fidelity tothe state coupled with a pled!e to renounce absolutely and forever all alle!ianceto any other state. This was unEualified acceptance of their identity as a 6ilipinoand the complete disavowal of any other nationality.

'etitioners have passed decades of their lives in the 'hilippines as

6ilipinos. Their present status havin! been formed by their past# petitioners canno lon!er have any national identity e<cept that which they chose upon reachin!the a!e of reason.

Corollary to this fact# we cannot a!ree with the view of the Court of

>ppeals that since the >CR presented by the petitioners are no lon!er valid onaccount of the new reEuirement to present an -series >CR# they are deemednot properly documented.02 +n the contrary# petitioners should not be e<pectedto secure -series >CR because it would be inconsistent with the election of citiAenship and its constructive re!istration throu!h their acts made public#amon! others# their e<ercise of suffra!e# election as public official# and continued













and uninterrupted stay in the 'hilippines since birth. The failure to re!ister asaliens is# obviously# consistent with petitioners election of 'hilippine citiAenship.

The leanin!s towards reco!nition of the citiAenship of children of 6ilipino

mothers have been indicated not alone by the Burisprudence that liberaliAed the

reEuirement on time of election# and reco!niAed positive acts of 'hilippinecitiAenship. The favor that is !iven to such children is li%ewise evident in the evolution

of the constitutional provision on 'hilippine citiAenship. Thus# while the 1()5 Constitution reEuires that children of 6ilipino mothers

elect 'hilippine citiAenship upon reachin! their a!e of maBority#12 upon theeffectivity of the 1() Constitution# they automatically become 6ilipinos ,2 andneed not elect 'hilippine citiAenship upon reachin! the a!e of maBority. The 1()provision reads3

&ection 1. The followin! are citiAens of the 'hilippines3

:1; <<<.:,; Those whose fathers and mothers are citiAens of

the 'hilippines.)2

$etter than the rela<ation of the reEuirement# the 1(8 Constitution now

classifies them as natural-born citiAens upon election of 'hilippinecitiAenship. Thus# &ec. ,# >rticle *? thereof provides3

Section (.

"atural-born citiAens are those who are citiAens of the 'hilippines from birth without havin! to perform any act toacEuire or perfect their 'hilippine citiAenship. o: Ao 6+P7677n +77Dn:7 7n a++or-an+ A7 ara<ra >3?,"+7on 1 ro 42 :a66 -9- naura6'orn+77Dn:. 0mphasis supplied.4

The constitutional bias is reflected in the deliberations of the 1(8HConstitutional Commission.

R. C+"C'C*+". < < <.

< < < < < < < < >s re!ards those born of 6ilipino mothers# the 1()5Constitution merely !ave them the option to choose 'hilippinecitiAenship upon reachin! the a!e of maBority# even# apparently# if the father were an alien or un%nown. pon the other hand# under











the 1() Constitution# children of mi<ed marria!es involvin! analien father and a 6ilipino mother are 6ilipino citiAens# thusliberaliAin! the counterpart provision in the 1()5 Constitution bydispensin! with the need to ma%e a declaration of intention uponreachin! the a!e of maBority. * understand that the committee would

further liberaliAe this provision of the 1()5 Constitution. TheCommittee seemin!ly proposes to further liberaliAe the policy of the1()5 Constitution by ma%in! those who became citiAens of the 'hilippines throu!h a declaration of intention to choose their mothers citiAenship upon reachin! the maBority a!e by declarin!that such children are natural-born citiAens of the 'hilippines. 52

< < < < <<< hy does the draft resolution adopt the provision of the 1()Constitution and not that of the 1()5F H2

< < < <6R. $R">&. < < < 'recisely# the reason behind the modification of the 1()5 rule on citiAenship was a reco!nition of the fact that itreflected a certain male chauvinism# and it was for the purpose of remedyin! that this proposed provision was put in. The idea wasthat we should not penaliAe the mother of a child simply becauseshe fell in love with a forei!ner. "ow# the Euestion on whatcitiAenship the child would prefer arises. e really have no way of !uessin! the preference of the infant. $ut if we reco!niAe the ri!htof the child to choose# then let him choose when he reaches the

a!e of maBority. * thin% dual citiAenship is Bust a reality imposed onus because we have no control of the laws on citiAenship of other countries. e reco!niAe a child of a 6ilipino mother. $ut whether or not she is considered a citiAen of another country is somethin!completely beyond our control. $ut certainly it is within the

Burisdiction of the 'hilippine !overnment to reEuire that at2 a certainpoint# a child be made to choose. $ut * do not thin% we shouldpenaliAe the child before he is even able to choose. * would#therefore# support the retention of the modification made in 1() of the male chauvinistic rule of the 1()5 Constitution.2

< < < < R. R=>>7+. ith respect to a child who became a 6ilipinocitiAen by election# which the Committee is now plannin! toconsider a natural-born citiAen# he will be so the moment he optsfor 'hilippine citiAenship. 7id the Committee ta%e into account thefact that at the time of birth# all he had was Bust an inchoate ri!ht tochoose 'hilippine citiAenship# and yet# by subseEuently choosin!










'hilippine citiAenship# it would appear that his choice retroacted tothe date of his birth so much so that under the =entlemansproposed amendment# he would be a natural-born citiAenF82

6R. $R">&. $ut the difference between him and the natural-born

who lost his status is that the natural-born who lost his status# lost itvoluntarilyD whereas# this individual in the situation contemplated in&ection 1# para!raph ) never had the chance to choose. (2

< < < < on the period within which to elect 'hilippine citiAenship2 R. R+7R*=+. T2his provision becomes very# very importantbecause his election of 'hilippine citiAenship ma%es him not only a6ilipino citiAen but a natural-born 6ilipino citiAen# entitlin! him to run

for Con!ress# to be a 9ustice of the &upreme Court < < <.

802

e are !uided by this evolvement from election of Philippine citi1enshipupon reaching the age of ma=orit under the 1()5 'hilippineConstitution to dispensing /ith the election re8uirement under the 1()'hilippine Constitution to e>press classification of these children as natural?bornciti1ens under the 1(8 Constitution towards the conclusion that the omission of the 1(41 statutory reEuirement of re!istration of the documents of election shouldnot result in the obliteration of the ri!ht to 'hilippine citiAenship.

avin! a 6ilipino mother is permanent. *t is the basis of the ri!ht of the

petitioners to elect 'hilippine citiAenship. 'etitioners elected 'hilippine

citiAenship in form and substance. The failure to re!ister the election in the civilre!istry should not defeat the election and resultin!ly ne!ate the permanent factthat they have a 6ilipino mother. The lac%in! reEuirements may still be compliedwith subBect to the imposition of appropriate administrative penalties# if any. Thedocuments they submitted supportin! their alle!ations that they have alreadyre!istered with the civil re!istry# althou!h belatedly# should be e<amined for validation purposes by the appropriate a!ency# in this case# the $ureau of *mmi!ration. +ther reEuirements embodied in the administrative orders and other issuances of the $ureau of *mmi!ration and the 7epartment of 9ustice shall becomplied with within a reasonable time.

)!EREFORE# the 7ecision dated ,( >u!ust ,00# and the Resolution

dated ,( ay ,008 of the Court of >ppeals in C>-=.R. &' "o. 8(5), affirmin!the 9ud!ment dated, 6ebruary ,005# and the Resolution dated 8 >pril ,005 of the $ureau of *mmi!ration in $&*-7.C. "o. >66-04-54 +C-&T6-04-0(O,)-141Hare hereby "E &"I%E with respect to petitioners $al!amelo Cabilin! a# 6eli<Cabilin! a# 9r.# and ?aleriano Cabilin! a. 'etitioners are !iven ninety :(0;days from notice within which to CO$PL# with the reEuirements of the $ureau of *mmi!ration embodied in its 9ud!ment of , 6ebruary ,005. The $ureau of









*mmi!ration shall EN"URE that all reEuirements# includin! the payment of their financial obli!ations to the state# if any# have been complied with subBect to theimposition of appropriate administrative finesD RE/IE) the documents submittedby the petitionersD and &C thereon in accordance with the decision of this Court.

"O OR%ERE%.

Documents

KAE Ses Jejejejeje