C) El acogimiento
IV. La norma del artículo 280 del Código civil
2. En relación con el tutor
Cancellation; Prescription & Effect of Death (1994)
No. 7: - Enzo, a Chinese national, was granted Philippine citizenship in a decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on January 10, 1956. He took his oath of office on June 5, 1959. In 1970, the Solicitor General filed a petition to cancel his citizenship on the ground that in July 1969 the Court of Tax Appeals found that Enzo had cheated the
government of income taxes for the years 1956 to 1959. Said decision of the Tax Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1969. Between 1960 and 1970, Enzo had acquired substantial real property In the Philippines,
(1) Has the action for cancellation of Enzo's citizenship prescribed?
(2) Can Enzo ask for the denial of the petition on the ground that he had availed of the Tax
Amnesty for his tax liabilities?
(3) What is the effect on the petition for cancellation of Enzo's citizenship if Enzo died during the pendency of the hearing on said petition?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, the action has not prescribed. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 214 SCRA 748, a certificate of naturalizalion may be cancelled at any time if it was fraudulently obtained by misleading the court regarding the moral character of the petitioner.
2) No, Enzo cannot ask for the denial of the petition for the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization on the ground that he had availed of the tax amnesty. In accordance with the ruling in Republic vs. Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748, the tax amnesty merely removed all the civil, criminal and administrative liabilities of Enzo. It did not obliterate his lack of good moral character and
irreproachable conduct. 3) On the assumption that he left a family, the death of Enzo does not render the petition for the cancellation of his certificate of naturalization moot. As held in Republic vs. Li Yao, 224 SCRA 748, the outcome of the case will affect his wife and children.
Citizenship; Elected Official (1993)
No. 7: Ferdie immigrated to the United States in the 1980s. Thereafter, he visited his hometown, Makahoy, every other year during town fiestas. In January 1993. Ferdie came home and filed his certificate of candidacy for Mayor of Makahoy. He won in the elections. Joe, the defeated candidate, learned that Ferdie is a greencard holder which on its face identifies Ferdie as a "resident alien"
and on the back thereof is clearly printed:
"Person identified by this card is entitled to reside permanently and work in the United States." Joe filed a case to disqualify Ferdie from assuming the mayorship of Maka-hoy.
Questions:
(1) Whether or not a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United States.
(2) Whether or not Ferdie's act of filing his certificate of candidacy constitutes waiver of his status as a permanent resident of the United States.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) According to the ruling in Coast vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 229, a green card is proof that the holder is a permanent resident of the United States, for it identifies the holder as a resident of the United States and states that the holder is entitled to reside permanently and work in the United States.
2) The filing of a certificate of candidacy does not constitute a waiver of the status of the holder of a green card as a permanent resident of the United States. As held in Coast vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA229, the waiver should be manifested by an act independent of and prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (1987) No. VIII: "A" was born in 1951 in the United States of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother.
Under Chinese laws, "A's" mother automatically became a Chinese national by her marriage.
In 1973, upon reaching the age of majority, "A"
elected to acquire Philippine citizenship. However,
"A" continued to reside in California and to carry an American passport. He also paid allegiance to the Taipei government. In the 1987 Philippine National elections, he was elected Senator. His opponent moved to disqualify him on the grounds:
a) That he was not a natural born citizen; and b) That he had "dual allegiance" not only to
the United States but also to the Republic of China. Decide.SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The electoral contest must be dismissed.
(a) "A" is a natural born citizen. Art. IV, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Sec. 1 hereof shall be deemed natural born citizens." The purpose of this provision is to equalize the status of those who elected Philippine citizenship before and those who did so after January 17, 1973 when the previous Constitution took effect.
(b) The "DUAL ALLEGIANCE" declared inimical to national interest in Art. IV, Sec. 5 refers to the dual allegiance of some such as naturalized Filipino citizens (mostly Chinese) who maintain allegiance to Nationalist China as
shown in some cases by their membership in the legislative Yuan after their naturalization as citizens of the Philippines. The prohibition does not apply in situations brought about by dual citizenship, such as the one involved in the problem. Indeed, a Filipino woman can have dual allegiance resulting from her marriage to a foreigner under Sec. 4, so long as she does not do or omit to do an act amounting to renunciation under Commonwealth Act. No. 63, Sec. 1(2).
Under this law, express renunciation is different from an act of allegiance to a foreign power as a ground for loss of Philippine citizenship.
Moreover, what constitutes "dual allegiance"
inimical to national interest is and what the sanctions for such dual allegiance will be, will still have to be defined by law pending adoption of such legislation, objection based on dual allegiance will be premature.
Dual Allegiance vs. Dual Citizenship (1988) No. 13: Robert Brown was born in Hawaii on May 15, 1962, of an American father and a Filipina mother. On May 16, 1983 while holding an American passport, he registered as a Filipino with the Philippine Consulate at Honolulu, Hawaii.
In September, 1983 he returned to the Philippines, and took up residence at Boac, Marinduque, hometown of his mother. He registered as a voter, voted, and even participated as a leader of one of the candidates in that district in the 1984 Batasan elections. In the elections of 1987, he ran for Congressman, and won. His sole opponent is now questioning his qualifications and is trying to oust him on two basic claims:
(1) He is not a natural born Filipino citizen, but is in fact, an American, born in Hawaii, an integral portion of the U.S.A., who holds an American passport;
(2) He did not meet the age requirement; and (3) He has a "green card" from the U.S.
Government.
Assume that you are a member of the House Electoral Tribunal where the petition for Brown's ouster is pending. How would you decide the three issues raised against him?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The first and third grounds have no merit. But the second is well taken and, therefore, Brown should be disqualified.
1. Robert Brown is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. A person born of a Filipino mother and an alien father before January 17, 1973, who thereafter upon reaching the age of majority elect Philippine citizenship, is a citizen
of the Philippines (Art. IV, sec. 1(3)). Under Art.
IV, sec, 2 he is also deemed a natural-born citizen.
2. The Constitution requires, among other things, that a candidate for member of the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years of age
"on the day of the election." (Art. VI, sec. 6). As Brown was born on May 15, 1962, he did not become 25 years old until May 15, 1987. Hence on May 11, 1987, when the election was held, he was 4 days short of the required age.
3. The Constitution provides that those who seek either to change their citizenship or to acquire the status of an immigrant of another country "during their tenure" shall be dealt with by law (Art. XI, sec. 17). The provision cannot apply to Brown for the following reasons: First, Brown is in addition an American citizen and thus has a dual
citizenship which is allowed by the Constitution.
(Cf. Art. IV, sec. 4), Second, Brown did not seek to acquire the status of an immigrant, but is an American by birth under the principle of jus soli obtaining in the United States. Third, he did not seek to change his status during his tenure as a public officer. Fourth, the provision of Art. XI, sec.
17 is not self-executing but requires an
implementing law. Fifth, but above all, the House Electoral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this question since it does not concern the
qualification of a member-elect.
Dual Citizenship (1994)
No. 8: In 1989, Zeny Reyes married Ben Tulog, a national of the State of Kongo. Under the laws of Kongo, an alien woman marrying a Kongo national automatically acquires Kongo citizenship. After her marriage, Zeny resided in Kongo and acquired a Kongo passport. In 1991, Zeny returned to the Philippines to run for Governor of Sorsogon.
(1) Was Zeny qualified to run for Governor?
(2) Suppose instead of entering politics. Zeny just got herself elected as vice-president of the Philippine Bulletin, a local newspaper. Was she qualified to hold that position?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Under Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution.
Zeny retained her Filipino citizenship. Since she also became a citizen of Kongo, she possesses dual citizenship. Pursuant to Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code, she is disqualified to run for governor. In addition, if Zeny returned to the Philippines, less than a year immediately before
the day of the election, Zeny is not qualified to run for Governor of Sorsogon. Under Section 39(a) of the Local Government Code, a candidate for governor must be a resident in the province where he intends to run at least one
(1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. By residing in Kongo upon her marriage in 1989, Zeny abandoned her residence in the Philippines. This is in accordance with the
decision in Caasi vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 229.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Zeny was not qualified to run for Governor.
Under the Constitution, "citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law to have renounced it." (Sec. 4, Art.
IV, Constitution). Her residing in Kongo and acquiring a Kongo passport are indicative of her renunciation of Philippine citizenship, which is a ground for loss of her citizenship which she was supposed to have retained. When she ran for Governor of Sorsogon, Zeny was no longer a Philippine citizen and, hence, was disqualified for said position.
2) Although under Section 11(1), Article XVI of the Constitution, mass media must be wholly owned by Filipino citizens and under Section 2 of the Anti-Dummy Law aliens may not intervene in the management of any nationalized business activity.
Zeny may be elected vice president of the Philippine Bulletin, because she has remained a Filipino citizen. Under Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens retains their citizenship unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. The acts or omission which will result in loss of citizenship are enumerated in Commonwealth Act No, 63. Zeny is not guilty of any of them. As held in Kawakita vs. United States, 343 U.S. 717, a person who possesses dual citizenship like Zeny may exercise rights of citizenship in both countries and the use of a passport pertaining to one country does not result in loss of citizenship in the other country.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Neither, was Zeny qualified to hold the position of vice-president of Philippine Bulletin. Under the Constitution, "the ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens, of the Philippines, or to corporation, cooperatives or associations wholly owned and managed by such citizens" (Section XI [1], Art. XVI), Being a
non-Philippine citizen, Zeny can
not qualify to participate in the management of the Bulletin as Vice-President thereof.
Effect of Marriage; Filipino (1989)
No, 2: (1) Lily Teh arrived in Manila on one of her regular tours to the Philippines from Taipeh. She met Peter Go, a naturalized Filipino citizen. After a whirlwind courtship, Lily and Peter were married at the San Agustin Church. A week after the wedding, Lily Teh petitioned in administrative proceedings before immigration authorities to declare her a Filipino citizen stating that she had none of the disqualifications provided in the Revised Naturalization Law. The jilted Filipino girlfriend of Peter Go opposed the petition claiming that Lily Teh was still a minor who had not even celebrated her 21st birthday, who never resided in the Philippines except during her one-week visit as tourist from Taipeh during the Chinese New Year, who spoke only Chinese, and who had radical ideas liked advocating unification of Taiwan with mainland China. Lily Teh, however, swore that she was renouncing her Chinese allegiance and while she knew no Filipino customs and traditions as yet, she evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace them. Would Lily Teh succeed in becoming a Filipino citizen through her marriage to Peter Go?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Lily Teh ipso facto became a Philippine citizen upon her marriage to Peter Go, who is a Philippine citizen, provided she possesses none of the disqualifications laid down in Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law. According to to the ruling in Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, an alien woman who marries a Filipino husband ipso facto becomes a Filipino citizen without having to possess any of the qualifications prescribed in Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law provided she possesses none of the disqualifications set forth in Section 4 of the same law. All of the grounds invoked by the former girlfriend of Peter Go for opposing the petition of Lily Teh, except for the last one, are qualifications, which Lily Teh need not possess. The fact that Lily Teh is advocating the unification of Taiwan with mainland China is not a ground for disqualification under Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law.
Effect of Oath of Allegiance (2004)
(4-a) TCA, a Filipina medical technologist, left in 1975 to work in ZOZ State. In 1988 she married ODH, a citizen of ZOZ. Pursuant to ZOZ's law, by taking an oath of allegiance, she
acquired her husband's citizenship. ODH died in 2001, leaving her financially secured. She
returned home in 2002, and sought elective office in 2004 by running for Mayor of APP, her
hometown. Her opponent sought to have her disqualified because of her ZOZ citizenship. She replied that although she acquired ZOZ's
citizenship because of marriage, she did not lose her Filipino citizenship. Both her parents, she said, are Filipino citizens. Is TCA qualified to run for Mayor? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
On the assumption that TCA took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ to acquire the citizenship of her husband, she is not qualified to run for mayor. She did not become a citizen of ZOZ merely by virtue of her marriage, she also took an oath of allegiance to ZOZ. By this act, she lost her Philippine citizenship. (Section 1 [3], Commonwealth Act No. 63.)
Effect of Repatriation (1999)
No III - B. Julio Hortal was born of Filipino parents. Upon reaching the age of majority, he became a naturalized citizen in another country.
Later, he reacquired Philippine citizenship. Could Hortal regain his status as natural born Filipino citizen? Would your answer be the same whether he reacquires his Filipino-citizenship by repatriation or by act of Congress? Explain. (3%) FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Julian Mortal can regain his status as a natural born citizen by repatriating. Since repatriation involves restoration of a person to citizenship previously lost by expatriation and Julian Mortal was previously a natural born citizen, in case he repatriates he will be restored to his status as a natural born citizen. If he reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal will not be a natural born citizen, since he reacquired his citizenship by legislative naturalization.
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Julian Hortal cannot regain his status as a natural born citizen by repatriating. He had to perform an act to acquire his citizenship, i.e., repatriation.
Under Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, natural born citizens are those who are citizens from birth without having to perform an act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. If he reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal will not be a natural born citizen since he reacquired his citizenship by legislative naturalization.
Effect of Repatriation (2002)
No I - A was born in the Philippines of Filipino parents. When martial law was declared in the Philippines on September 21, 1972, he went to the United States and was naturalized as an American citizen. After the EDSA Revolution, he came home to the Philippines and later on reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation. Suppose in the May 2004 elections he is elected Member of the House of Representatives and a case is filed seeking his disqualification on the ground that he is not a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, how should the case against him be decided? Explain your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should be decided in favor of A. As held In Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 357 SCRA 545 (2001), repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.
Since A was a natural-born Filipino citizen before he became a naturalized American citizen, he was restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino when he repatriated.
Effect of Repatriation (2003)
No IV - Juan Cruz was born of Filipino parents in 1960 in Pampanga. In 1985, he enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and took an oath of allegiance to the United States of America. In 1990, he was naturalized as an American citizen. In 1994, he was repatriated under Republic Act No. 2430.
During the 1998 National Elections, he ran for and was elected representative of the First District of Pampanga where he resided since his repatriation. Was he qualified to run for the position? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cruz was qualified to run as representative of the First District of Pampanga. Since his parents were Filipino citizens, he was a natural-born citizen.
Although he became a naturalized American citizen, under the ruling in Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. 357 SCRA 545 [2001], by virtue of his repatriation, Cruz was restored to his original status as a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Effects of Marriages (1999)
No III- What are the effects of marriages of:
1 a citizen to an alien; (1%)
2 an alien to a citizen; on their spouses and children? Discuss. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.) According to Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution, Filipino citizens who marry aliens retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
2) According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen provided she possesses none of the disqualifications for naturalization. A foreign man who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship. However, under Section 3
2) According to Mo Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, 41 SCRA 292, under Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a Filipino citizen becomes a Filipino citizen provided she possesses none of the disqualifications for naturalization. A foreign man who marries a Filipino citizen does not acquire Philippine citizenship. However, under Section 3