Thursday, February 16, 2012

citizenship quizzers

1. Rosalinda Evasco was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Western Australia, to the spouses Telesforo Evasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarinez Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian.In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines.On June 27, 1962, she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen, at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila.Since then she has continuously participated in the electoral processnot only as a voter but as a candidate.She served as provincial board member of Davao City,and in 1992 was elected governor of Davao City.

Her losing Opponent filed a case to oust her as governor on the ground that she is not a Filipino citizen, on the following grounds: in 1988 Rosalinda registered herself with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695 dated September 19, 1988; she was issued an Australian Passport No. H7OOO78 on March 3, 1968.

Is Rosalinda Evasco a Filipino qualified to hold the office of governor?

ANSWER: Rosalinda Evasco is a Filipino citizen, for the main reason that her father is a Filipino citizen.The Philippine Bill of 1902 provides that the child of a Filipino father is also a Filipino citizen.

2 Jose Cruz was born in San Clemente, Tarlac on April 27, 1960 of Filipino parents. On November 5, 1985, he enlisted in the US Marine Corps and without the consent of the Philippines took his oath of allegiance to the United States.On March 17, 1994 he repatriated under Republic Act No. 2630.He ran for and was elected as Congressman for the Second District of Pangasinan on May 11, 1998 elections. His losing opponent filed a petition for qou warranto before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal claiming that Jose Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the House of Representatives since he is not a natural-born citizen as required under ARTICLE VI, Section 6 of the Philippine constitution. Is Jose Cruz, a natural-born Filipino?

Jose Cruz is a natural born Filipino. RA 2630 provides that repatriation resrtores to a previous Filipino his natural Filipino citizenship.

3 Jose Lopez was born on August 20, 1939.His paternal grandfather,(a Spaniard), Lorenzo Lopez was married to a Filipina. Lorenzo resided in Pangasinan and died there on September 11, 1954.The father of Jose Lopez, Mariano Lopez, a famous businessman was born on May 17, 1915, who married Maria Gomez.Their relationship did not last long. Mariano had an illicit affiar with an American woman named Betsy Ford, and from said relationship, Jose Lopez came about.

Is Jose Lopez a Filipino citizen?

Jose Lopez is a Filipino. His paternal father though a Spaniard (by nationality) resided and died in Pangasinan hence covered by the mass Filipinization by virtue of the Phil. Bill of 1902. There is not showing that he executed any act to become a Spanish citizen.Since Lorenzo is a Filipino citizen, naturally Jose Lopez follows the citizenship of this father.



(a) Commission on Naturalization

(b) Committee on Repatriation

(c) Special Committee on Immigration

(d) Special Committee on Naturalization

(e) Special Committee on Administrative Naturalization

(f) none of the above.

Answer: Petition for Citizenship. - (1) Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall file with the Special Committee on Naturalization created under Section 6 hereof, a petition of five (5) copies legibly typed and signed, thumbmarked and verified by him/her, with the latter's passport-sized photograph attached to each copy of the petition, and setting forth the following:

B. Section 9 of the same Act, provides that the petitioner must pay the naturalization fee of

(a) P50,000

(B) P100,000

(C) 150,000

(D) p50,000 upon approval

(e) P50,000 upon the taking of oath of allegiance

(f) both d and e

answer: SEC. 9. Decree of Naturalization and Naturalization Processing Fee. - Within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the notice of the approval of his/her petition, the applicant shall pay to the Committee a naturalization fee of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) payable as follows: Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) upon the approval of the petition and Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) upon the taking of the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, forthwith, a certificate of naturalization shall be issued. Within sixty (60) days from the issuance of the certificate, the petitioner shall take an oath of allegiance in the proper forum upon proof of payment of the required naturalization processing fee and certificate of naturalization. Should the applicant fail to take the abovementioned oath of allegiance within said period of time, the approval of the petition shall be deemed abandoned.


(a) women must have lost their citizenship on account of economic necessity

(b) Citizenship was lost by reason of political necessity

(c) women are repatriated by reason of marriage only to foreigners

(d) citizenship must be on account of both political and economic necessity

(e) both c and d.

ANSWER: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship, including their minor children, on account of political or economic necessity, may reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation in the manner provided in Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 63,


(a) residential lot of not more than 500 square meters

(b) not more than 1,000 sq. m

(c) farm lot of not more than 5 hectares

(d) farm lot of nor more than 3 hectares only

(e) residential lot of not more than 1,000 sq m and/or farm lot of not more than 3 hectares

(f) none of the above

Sec. 6. Land Ownership. - Any Filipino veteran and his spouse and legitimate, natural, recognized illegitimate, and unmarried children who acquired American citizenship as provided in the United States Immigration Act of 1990 shall be entitled to continue to hold and retain all the lands they have acquired before becoming American citizens, subject to the provisions of existing laws: Provided, however, That if they have had no landholding upon becoming American citizens, they shall be qualified to acquire one (1) residential lot of not more than one thousand square meters and/or a farm lot of not more than three hectares

E. Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of the Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of 11 April 1899 if he was

(A) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899,

(B) residing in the Philippines on said date, and,

(C) since that date, not a citizen of some other country

(D) all of the above

(E) only A and B

(f) none of the above

Answer: The Jones Law provides:

SEC. 2 That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have since become citizens of some other country: Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who cannot come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws of the

5. In 1925, Victoriano Chiong, a Chinese citizen and father of the herein petitioner William Chiong, was elected to and held the office of municipal councilor of the town of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis. It is also shown and admitted that at the time of the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, petitioner William Chiongbian was still a minor.

Question: Is William Chiong considered a Filipino citizen? Why?

Yes, William Chiongbian is a Filipino citizen by virtue of the 193 Constitution which provides that those who are elected to public office shall be considered as Filipino citizens. Since William’s father is a Filipino, he therefore follows his father’s citizenship.

Sec. 1. Art IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution;

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office;

(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippine;

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines, and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship;

(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law

6.In the case of Tabasa (2006) accordingly there are four types of Filipinos who leave their country. State these four types.

The first is what we call the "economic refugees" who go abroad to work because there is no work to be found in the country. Then we have the "political refugees" who leave the country for fear of their lives because they are not in consonance with the prevailing policy of government. The third type is those who have committed crimes and would like to escape from the punishment of said crimes. Lastly, we have those Filipinos who feel that they are not Filipinos, thereby seeking other citizenship elsewhere.

Of these four types of Filipinos, Mr. Speaker, the first two have to leave the country not of choice, but rather out of sacrifice to look for a better life, as well as for a safer abode for themselves and their families. It is for these two types of Filipinos that this measure is being proposed for approval by this body

7.The general rule is that the principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in the case of Burca vs. Republic,[1][13] an exception to this general rule was recognized. What is the exception?

ANSWER: The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:

1) a person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;

2) the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof, and

3) the finding on citizenship is affirmed by this Court.

8. Please look at the petition filed below:

“FIRST. - His full name is Roy Bastillada Rosales. Copy of his latest picture is hereto attached and made an integral part of this petition.

“SECOND. - His present place of residence is #69 New York St., Provident Village, Marikina, Metro Manila and his former residence was in Las Vegas, U.S.

“THIRD. - His trade or profession is in buy and sell and managing the properties of his parents which he has been engaged since his arrival here in the Philippines.

“FOURTH. - He was born on the 22nd day of June 1954 at Tondo, Manila. He was formerly a citizen of the Philippines. He lost his Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. He is at present a citizen or subject of the United States of America. Copy of his birth certificate is hereto attached as Annex ‘A.’

“FIFTH. - He is newly married to Zenaida Lim who was born in Tondo, Manila and now resides at petitioner’s residence at Marikina, Metro Manila. Copy of their marriage contract is hereto attached as Annex ‘B.’

“SIXTH. - He returned to the Philippines from the United States of America in 1991. Copy of his alien registration is hereto attached as Annex ‘C.’

He filed his petition before the Regional Trial Court of Marikina. The Judge of RTC Marikina dismissed his petition. Is the dismissal correct? If so, why? Given the set of facts, what would be your advise to Roy Rosales for him to properly reacquire his Filipino citizenship?

ANSWER: “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 thereover. The court’s order of 04 October 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire finality[1][14] nor could be a source of right on the part of petitioner.[1][15] It should also be noteworthy that the petition in Case No. N-96-03-MK was one for repatriation, and it was thus incorrect for petitioner to initially invoke Republic Act No. 965[1][16] and R.A. No. 2630[1][17] since these laws could only apply to persons who had lost their citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting 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 of the 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.(Angat v. Republic, GR 132244, September 14, 1999)”

9. Distinguish dual allegiance from dual citizenship

A person who is a citizen of two countries is having dual citizenship. A person who takes an oath of allegiance to two countries has dual allegiance. It is dual allegiance which is prohibited under the 1987 constitution not dual citizenship. For a person may have dual citizenship but does not have dual allegiance.

10. Chan Sau Wah, a Chinese citizen born in Fukien, China on January 6, 1932, arrived in the Philippines on November 23, 1961 to visit her cousin, Samuel Lee Malaps. She left in mainland China two of her children by a first marriage: Fu Tse Haw and Fu Yan Kai With her was Fu Yan Fun, her minor son also by the first marriage, born in Hongkong on September 11, 1957.

Chan Sau Wah and her minor son Fu Yan Fun were permitted only into the Philippines under a temporary visitor's visa for two (2) months and after they posted a cash bond of P4,000.00.

On January 24, 1962, Chan Sau Wah married Esteban Morano, a native-born Filipino citizen. Born to this union on September 16, 1962 was Esteban Morano, Jr.

To prolong their stay in the Philippines, Chan Sau Wah and Fu Yan Fun obtained several extensions. The last extension expired on September 10, 1962.

In a letter dated August 31, 1962, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son, Fu Yan Fun, to leave the country on or before September 10, 1962 with a warning that upon failure so to do, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond.

Instead of leaving the country, on September 10, 1962, Chan Sau Wah (with her husband Esteban Morano) and Fu Yan Fun petitioned the Court of First Instance of Manila for mandamus to compel the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel petitioners' Alien Certificates of Registration; prohibition to stop the Commissioner from issuing a warrant for their arrest, and preliminary injunction to restrain the Commissioner from confiscating their cash bond and from issuing warrants of arrest pending resolution of this case. 1 The trial court, on November 3, 1962, issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for, upon a P2,000-bond. After trial and the stipulations of facts filed by the parties, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment, viz:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

(a) Granting this petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with respect to petitioner CHAN SAU WAH, who is hereby declared a citizen of the Philippines; ordering the respondent to cancel her Alien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, upon the payment of proper dues; and declaring the preliminary injunction with respect to her permanent, prohibiting the respondent, his representatives or subordinates from arresting and/or deporting said petitioner;

(b) Dismissing this petition with respect to petitioner FU YAN FUN, and dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction issued herein, restraining the respondent, his representatives or subordinates from arresting and/or deporting said petitioner;

(c) Authorizing respondent Commissioner to forfeit the bond filed by herein petitioners CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN in the amount of P4,000.00; and

(d) Denying, for lack of merit, the prayer to declare Sec. 37 (a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 unconstitutional;

Without pronouncement, as to costs.

QUESTION: Is the ruling of the trial court valid? Explain.

Answer: The ruling of the court is invalid. The Judgment is reversed. Conformably to the foregoing, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows:

“(1) The portion thereof which reads:

(a) Granting their petition for Mandamus and Prohibition with respect to petitioner CHAN SAU WAH, who is hereby declared a citizen of the Philippines; ordering the respondent to cancel her Alien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, upon the payment of proper dues; and declaring preliminary injunction with respect to her permanent, prohibiting the respondent, his representatives or subordinates from arresting and/or deporting said petitioner;

is hereby reversed: and, in consequence —

The petition for mandamus and prohibition with respect to petitioner Chan Sau Wah is hereby denied; and the judgment declaring her a citizen of the Philippines, directing respondent to cancel her Alien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, and declaring the preliminary injunction with respect to her permanent, are all hereby set aside; and

(2) In all other respects, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed.”


[1] ESTEBAN MORANO, CHAN SAU WAH and FU YAN FUN, petitioners-appellants, vs.
HON. MARTINIANO VIVO in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Immigration
, respondent-appellant.
G.R. No. L-22196 June 30, 1967

No comments: