Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...

Case Digest: Republic of the Philippines v. Sagun (G.R. No. 187567)

Republic of the Philippines v. Nora Fe Sagun | G.R. No. 187567 | February 15, 2012 | Villarama, J. | Article IV |

Recit Ready Summary:

  • Respondent is a legitimate child of a Filipino Mother and a Chinese father, and did not elect Philippine citizenship until 12 years after reaching the age of majority. She went to court, praying that she be declared a Filipino, claiming that she speaks Ilocano and Tagalog, and is a registered voter. She claims that through these acts, she has effectively elected citizenship. 
  • Issue is w/n she elected Philippine Citizenship. Court said no. 
    • First, the Courts are not authorized to grant citizenship to foreign nationals, even those who were born here and had to elect Philippine Citizenship. 
    • The applicable law is C.A. 625, which requires a statement of election, an oath of allegiance, and the registration of the two. 
    • Furthermore, one who wishes to elect citizenship in accordance with the provision of the 1935 constitution (applicable constitution when Respondent reached age of majority) must be registered as an alien, before electing citizenship. Therefore, the courts had no jurisdiction to grant the prayer. 
  • Even if the procedural infirmity is set aside, waiting 12 years to elect citizenship also acts as a bar to Respondent’s election of Philippine Citizenship. It definitely does not fall under “reasonable time.” 
FACTS:
1. Respondent is a legitimate child of a Filipino Mother and a Chinese father, and did not elect Philippine citizenship until 12 years after reaching the age of majority. In September 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport, but was denied due to the citizenship of her father, and not having any annotation on her birth certificate that she elected Philippine citizenship.
2. Respondent averred that she speaks Ilocano and Tagalog fluently, attended local schools, and is a registered voter in Baguio City; having voted in local and national elections. She avers that through her positive acts, she has effectively elected Philippine citizenship.
3. OSG entered its appearance, but the Prosecutor did not file a comment. The trial court granted respondent’s petition, declaring her a citizen, and ordering the LCR to annotate to her birth certificate the judicial declaration of Filipino citizenship.

ISSUE:
1. W/N Respondent’s petition is sanctioned by the rules of court? No
2. W/N Election of citizenship 12 years after reaching the age of majority is within “reasonable time” as interpreted by jurisprudence? No

HELD:
  • The Court has consistently held that there is no proceeding established by law for the judicial declaration of citizenship. There is no specific legislation authorizing an institution of a judicial proceeding to declare the citizenship of a given person. Hence, it was erroneous for the trial court to have declared the Respondent to be a citizen. 
  • Respondent was born in August 8 1959, with the governing constitution being the 1935 Constitution. Commonwealth Act 625 provides that the option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned. The statutory formalities are: 1) statement of election under oath; 2) an oath of allegiance; and 3) registration of the election and oath. Furthermore, one who chooses to elect citizenship must first be registered as an alien in accordance with the Alien Registration Act. 
  • Therefore, the Respondent erred in asking the court to grant her citizenship as it had no authority to do as such. Even if the procedural infirmity was set aside, the fact that respondent elected her citizenship only 12 years after reaching the age of majority prevents her from obtaining it, as it was definitely not done within “reasonable time.” 
DISPOSITION: Petition granted.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)