On the other hand private respondents oath of

Doc Preview
Pages 32
Identified Q&As 3
Solutions available
Total views 100+
held that by filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. To recapitulate, by declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.
On the other hand, private respondent’s oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfil his undertaking made under oath. Should he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, we sustained the denial of entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in commercial documents executed abroad that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against any one who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. Sources: Full text of case Case digest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Res judicata in citizenship cases Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Naturalization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ G.R. No. 104654June 6, 1994 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, MANILA and JUAN G. FRIVALDO, respondents. This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and Section 25 of the Interim Rules,filed by the Republic of the Philippines: (1) to annul the Decision datedFebruary 27, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila, in SPProc. No. 91-
58645, which re-admitted private respondent as a Filipinocitizen under the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 63 as amendedby C.A. No. 473); and (2) to nullify the oath of allegiance taken byprivate respondent on February 27, 1992.On September 20, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for naturalizationcaptioned: "In the Matter of Petition of Juan G. Frivaldo to be Re-admitted as a Citizen of the Philippines under Commonwealth Act No.63" (Rollo, pp. 17-23).In an Order dated October 7, 1991 respondent Judge set the petitionfor hearing on March 16, 1992, and directed the publication of the saidorder and petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of generalcirculation, for three consecutive weeks, the last publication of whichshould be at least six months before the said date of hearing. Theorder further required the posting of a copy thereof and the petition ina conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Manila (Rollo, pp. 24-26).On January 14, 1992, private respondent filed a "Motion to Set HearingAhead of Schedule," where he manifested his intention to run for publicoffice in the May 1992 elections. He alleged that the deadline for filingthe certificate of candidacy was March 15, one day before thescheduled hearing.
He asked that the hearing set on March 16 becancelled and be moved to January 24 (Rollo, pp. 27- 28). The motion was granted in an Order dated January 24, 1992, whereinthe hearing of the petition was moved to February 21, 1992. The saidorder was not published nor a copy thereof posted.On February 21, the hearing proceeded with private respondent as thesole witness. He submitted the following documentary evidence: (1)Affidavit of Publication of the Order dated October 7, 1991 issued bythe publisher of The Philippine Star (Exh. "A"); (2) Certificate of Publication of the order issuedby the National Printing Office (Exh. "B"); (3) Notice of Hearing of Petition (Exh. "B-1"); (4) Photocopy of a Citation issued by the NationalPress Club with private respondent’s picture (Exhs. "C" and "C-2"); (5) Certificate of Appreciation issued by the Rotary Club of Davao (Exh."D"); (6) Photocopyof a Plaque of Appreciation issued by the Republican College, QuezonCity (Exh. "E"); (7) Photocopy of a Plaque of Appreciation issued by theDavao-Bicol Association (Exh. "F"); (8) Certification issued by theRecords Management and Archives Office that the record of birth of private respondent was not on file (Exh. "G"); and (8) Certificate of Naturalization issued by the United States District Court (Exh. "H").Six days later, on February 27, respondent Judge rendered the assailedDecision, disposing as follows:WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Petitioner JUAN G.FRIVALDO, is re-admitted as a citizen of the Republic of thePhilippines by naturalization, thereby vesting upon him, allthe rights and privileges of a natural born Filipino citizen(Rollo, p. 33).On the same day, private respondent was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before respondent Judge (Rollo, p. 34).On March 16, a "Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and to AdmitMotion for Reconsideration" was filed by Quiterio H. Hermo. He allegedthat the proceedings were tainted with jurisdictional defects, andprayed for a new trial to conform with the requirements of theNaturalization Law.After receiving a copy of the Decision on March 18, 1992, the SolicitorGeneral interposed a timely appeal directly with the Supreme Court. Sources: Full text of case Case digest *not sure if this is the right case please verify! thanks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Loss of citizenship - By naturalization in a foreign country ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ G.R. No. 87193June 23, 1989 JUAN GALLANOSA FRIVALDO, petitioner, vs.
Course Hero Badge

Want to read all 32 pages?

Previewing 14 of 32 pages Upload your study docs or become a member.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES, SORSOGON CHAPTER, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SALVADOR NEE ESTUYE, respondents. Facts:Petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of Sorsogon on January 22, 1988, and assumed office in due time. On October 27, 1988, the League of Municipalities, Sorsogon Chapter, represented by its President, Estuye, who was also suing in his personal capacity, filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo; election and proclamation on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having been naturalized in the United States on January 20, 1983. In his answer dated May 22, 1988, Frivaldo admitted that he was naturalized in the United States as alleged but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he had sought American citizenship only to protect himself against President Marcos. His naturalization, he said, was "merely forced upon himself as a means of survival against the unrelenting persecution by the Martial Law Dictator's agents abroad." He added that he had returned to the Philippines after the EDSA revolution to help in the restoration of democracy. In their Comment, the private respondents reiterated their assertion that Frivaldo was a naturalized American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on the day of the election on January 18, 1988. He was therefore not qualified to run for and be elected governor. They also argued that their petition in the Commission on Elections was not really for quo warranto under Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code. The ultimate purpose was to prevent Frivaldo from continuing as governor, his candidacy and election being null and void ab initio because of his alienage. Speaking for the public respondent, the Solicitor General supported the contention that Frivaldo was not a citizen of the Philippines and had not repatriated himself after his naturalization as an American citizen. As an alien, he was disqualified from public office in the Philippines. His election did not cure this defect because the electorate of Sorsogon could not amend the Constitution, the Local Government Code, and the Omnibus Election Code. He also joined in the private respondent's argument that Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code was not applicable because what the League and Estuye were seeking was not only the annulment of the proclamation and election of Frivaldo. He agreed that they were also asking for the termination of Frivaldo's incumbency as governor of Sorsogon on the ground that he was not a Filipino. Issue:Whether or Not petitioner Juan G. Frivaldo was a citizen of the Philippines at the time of his election on January 18, 1988, as provincial governor of Sorsogon. Held:The reason for this inquiry is the provision in Article XI, Section 9, of the Constitution that all public officials and employees owe the State and the Constitution "allegiance at all times" and the specific requirement in Section 42 of the Local Government Code that a candidate for local elective office must be inter alia a citizen of the Philippines and a qualified voter of the constituency where he is running. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution. In the certificate of candidacy he filed on November 19, 1987, Frivaldo described himself as a "natural-born" citizen of the Philippines, omitting mention of any subsequent loss of such status. The evidence shows, however, that he was naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 1983 per the following certification from the United States District Court, Northern District of California, as duly authenticated by Vice Consul Amado P. Cortez of the Philippine Consulate General in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. The Court sees no reason not to believe that the petitioner was one of the enemies of the Marcos dictatorship. Even so, it cannot agree that as a consequence thereof he was coerced into embracing
Course Hero Badge

End of preview

Want to read all 32 pages? Upload your study docs or become a member.