Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4




This case is a constitutional/political case as this case talks about

Jus sanguinis doctrine
J us sanguinis (right of blood) cites as basis for citizenship the law of
the place of ones descent or parentage. Its the principle that a persons
citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the parents.

On the other hand, J us soli (the right of the soil) cites as basis the the
law of the place of ones birth. Its the principle that a persons citizenship
is determined by place of birth rather than by the citizenship of ones
The United States follows the J us soli doctrine. This principle of
citizenship is ensconced in the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution,
Article XIV Section 1, which reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside.

Because of these two legal principles that determine a persons citizenship,
it is thus possible that a person may become a dual citizen by law, and
acquisition of which requires no action on his part. Dual citizenship,
therefore, arises because theres no single international norm on the
acquisition of citizenship. A child born in the United States of Filipino
parents, who are permanent residents, is both a Filipino and an American
citizen. The child is a Filipino because the parents are Filipino nationals
and the Philippines follows the doctrine of Jus sanguinis. The child is also
an American citizen because he was born in the United States, which
follows the doctrine ofJus soli.
What I understand about the case is that the widowed mother, herself thus,
reacquired her former nationality, her children, she being their natural
guardian, should follow her nationality with the provision that they may elect
for themselves upon reaching majority




This law is POLITICAL LAW / CONSTITUTIONAL LAW because it talks
about the qualifications and loss of candidacy due to citizenship.

The doctrine about here is the doctrine of the right to travel because
according to Aznar, osemea is having loss of his position of Provincial
Governor of Cebu Province because the COMELEC said that he is
alledgely not a Filipino citizen because he travelled to the United States of
America.The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three
separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their
textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between
states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal

The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV,
provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the
"Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state. The third is the
right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to
enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most
often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which
require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before
taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

What I understand about this case is that Philippine courts are only allowed
to determine who Filipino citizens are and who are not. Whether or not a
person is considered an American under the laws of the United States does
not concern us here. By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the
presumption that private respondent is a Filipino remains. Philippine
citizenship must be "express.


Inheritance law

Civil Case: Talks about a person leaving a will and considerable amount of
real and personal properties.

The doctrine of Succession is applied here and this doctrine is a mode of
acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations, to the
extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through
his death to another, or others either by will or by operation of law. If a
persons property, rights and obligation is passed to another person, the
person who received these will be obliged to continue his properties.
Transmission of the rights and obligations of the deceased to his heirs.
Succession signifies also the estate, rights and charges which a person
leaves after his death, whether the properties exceed the charges, or the
charges exceed the property, or whether he has left only charges without
property. The succession not only includes the rights and obligations of the
deceased, as they exist at the time of his death, but all that has accrued
thereto since the opening of the succession, as also of the new charges to
which it becomes subject. Finally, succession signifies also that right by
which the heir can take possession of the estate of the deceased, such as
it may be. There are three sorts of successions: testamentary succession;
legal succession; and, irregular succession. Testamentary succession is
that which results from the constitution of the heir, contained in a testament
executed in the form prescribed by law. Legal succession is that which is
established in favor of the nearest relations of the deceased. Irregular
succession is that which is established by law in favor of certain persons or
of the state in default of heirs either legal or instituted by testament.
What I understand about this case the property of the descendants tax
should be measured by the value of the estate as it stood at the time of the
decedent's death, regardless of any subsequent contingency value of any
subsequent increase or decrease in value.