RP V.

SAGUN
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari fled by the Solicitor General on
behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, seeking the reversal of the April 3, !!"
#ecision
1[1]
of the Regional $rial %ourt &R$%', Branch 3, of Baguio %ity in Spcl( Pro( %ase
)o( *+,R( $he R$% granted the petition
2[2]
fled by respondent )ora -e Sagun entitled In
re: Judicial Declaration of Election of Filipino Citizenship, Nora Fe Sagun v. he !ocal Civil
"egistrar of #aguio Cit$.%
$he facts follow.
Respondent is the legiti/ate child of Albert S( %han, a %hinese national, and 0arta
Borro/eo, a -ilipino citi1en( She was born on August 2, *"3" in Baguio %ity
3[3]
and did
not elect Philippine citi1enship upon reaching the age of /a4ority( 5n *"", at the age of
33 and after getting /arried to Ale6 Sagun, she e6ecuted an 7ath of Allegiance
4[4]
to the
Republic of the Philippines( Said docu/ent was notari1ed by Atty( %risteta 8eung on
#ece/ber *+, *"", but was not recorded and registered with the 8ocal %ivil Registrar of
Baguio %ity(
So/eti/e in Septe/ber !!3, respondent applied for a Philippine passport( 9er
application was denied due to the citi1enship of her father and there being no annotation
on her birth certifcate that she has elected Philippine citi1enship( %onse:uently, she
sought a 4udicial declaration of her election of Philippine citi1enship and prayed that the
8ocal %ivil Registrar of Baguio %ity be ordered to annotate the sa/e on her birth
certifcate(
5n her petition, respondent averred that she was raised as a -ilipino, speaks 5locano
and $agalog ;uently and attended local schools in Baguio %ity, including 9oly -a/ily
Acade/y and the Saint 8ouis <niversity( Respondent clai/ed that despite her part,
%hinese ancestry, she always thought of herself as a -ilipino( She is a registered voter of
Precinct )o( !=*"A of Barangay 0anuel A( Ro6as in Baguio %ity and had voted in local
and national elections as shown in the >oter %ertifcation
5[5]
issued by Atty( 0aribelle
</inga of the %o//ission on ?lections of Baguio %ity(
1 [1]
Rollo, pp. 27-32. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan.
2 [2]
Reords, pp. 1- !.
3 [3]
"d. at #$.
! [!]
"d. at 7.
% [%]
"d. at &.
She asserted that by virtue of her positive acts, she has e@ectively elected
Philippine citi1enship and such fact should be annotated on her record of birth so as to
entitle her to the issuance of a Philippine passport(
7n August +, !!+, the 7Ace of the Solicitor General &7SG' entered its
appearance as counsel for the Republic of the Philippines and authori1ed the %ity
Prosecutor of Baguio %ity to appear in the above /entioned case(
6[6]
9owever, no
co//ent was fled by the %ity Prosecutor(
After conducting a hearing, the trial court rendered the assailed #ecision on April
3, !!" granting the petition and declaring respondent a -ilipino citi1en( $he fallo of the
decision reads.
B9?R?-7R?, the instant petition is hereby GRA)$?#( Petitioner )ora
-e Sagun y %han is hereby #?%8AR?# CaD -585P5)7 %5$5E?), having chosen or
elected -ilipino citi1enship(
<pon pay/ent of the re:uired fees, the 8ocal %ivil Registrar of Baguio
%ity is hereby directed to annotate ConD her birth certifcate, this 4udicial
declaration of -ilipino citi1enship of said petitioner(
5$ 5S S7 7R#?R?#(
7[7]
%ontending that the lower court erred in so ruling, petitioner, through the 7SG,
directly fled the instant recourse via a petition for review on certiorari before us(
Petitioner raises the following issues.
5
Bhether or not an action or proceeding for 4udicial declaration of
Philippine citi1enship is procedurally and 4urisdictionally per/issibleF and,
55
Bhether or not an election of Philippine citi1enship, /ade twelve &*'
years after reaching the age of /a4ority, is considered to have been /ade
Gwithin a reasonable ti/eH as interpreted by 4urisprudence(
8[8]
Petitioner argues that respondentIs petition before the R$% was i/proper on two
counts. for one, law and 4urisprudence clearly conte/plate no 4udicial action or
proceeding for the declaration of Philippine citi1enshipF and for another, the pleaded
registration of the oath of allegiance with the local civil registry and its annotation on
respondentIs birth certifcate are the /inisterial duties of the registrarF hence, they
re:uire no court order( Petitioner asserts that respondentIs petition before the trial court
seeking a 4udicial declaration of her election of Philippine citi1enship undeniably entails a
deter/ination and conse:uent declaration of her status as a -ilipino citi1en which is not
allowed under our legal syste/( Petitioner also argues that if respondentIs intention in
# [#]
"d. at 2&.
7 [7]
Rollo, p. 32.
& [&]
"d. at %'.
fling the petition is ulti/ately to have her oath of allegiance registered with the local
civil registry and annotated on her birth certifcate, then she does not have to resort to
court proceedings(
Petitioner further argues that even assu/ing that respondentIs action is
sanctioned, the trial court erred in fnding respondent as having duly elected Philippine
citi1enship since her purported election was not in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law and was not /ade within a Greasonable ti/e(H Petitioner points out
that while respondent e6ecuted an oath of allegiance before a notary public, there was
no aAdavit of her election of Philippine citi1enship( Additionally, her oath of allegiance
which was not registered with the nearest local civil registry was e6ecuted when she was
already 33 years old or * years after she reached the age of /a4ority( Accordingly, it
was /ade beyond the period allowed by law(
5n her %o//ent,
9[9]
respondent avers that notwithstanding her failure to for/ally
elect -ilipino citi1enship upon reaching the age of /a4ority, she has in fact e@ectively
elected -ilipino citi1enship by her perfor/ance of positive acts, a/ong which is the
e6ercise of the right of su@rage( She clai/s that she had voted and participated in all
local and national elections fro/ the ti/e she was of legal age( She also insists that she
is a -ilipino citi1en despite the fact that her GelectionH of Philippine citi1enship was
delayed and unregistered(
5n reply,
10[10]
petitioner argues that the special circu/stances invoked by
respondent, like her continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, her having
been educated in schools in the country, her choice of staying here despite the
naturali1ation of her parents as A/erican citi1ens, and her being a registered voter,
cannot confer on her Philippine citi1enship as the law specifcally provides the
re:uire/ents for ac:uisition of Philippine citi1enship by election(
?ssentially, the issues for our resolution are. &*' whether respondentIs petition for
declaration of election of Philippine citi1enship is sanctioned by the Rules of %ourt and
4urisprudenceF &' whether respondent has e@ectively elected Philippine citi1enship in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law(
$he petition is /eritorious(
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this %ourt fro/ the
decisions, fnal resolutions and orders of the R$% /ay be taken where only :uestions of
law are raised or involved( $here is a :uestion of law when the doubt or di@erence arises
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, which does not call for an e6a/ination of
' [']
"d. at !3-!!.
1$ [1$]
"d. at !&-!'.
the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties,litigants( 7n the other
hand, there is a :uestion of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts( Si/ply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the :uestion
of whether the conclusion drawn therefro/ is correct or not, is a :uestion of law(
11[11]

5n the present case, petitioner assails the propriety of the decision of the trial court
declaring respondent a -ilipino citi1en after fnding that respondent was able to
substantiate her election of -ilipino citi1enship( Petitioner contends that respondentIs
petition for 4udicial declaration of election of Philippine citi1enship is procedurally and
4urisdictionally i/per/issible( >erily, petitioner has raised :uestions of law as the
resolution of these issues rest solely on what the law provides given the attendant
circu/stances(
5n granting the petition, the trial court stated.
$his %ourt believes that petitioner was able to fully substantiate her
petition regarding her election of -ilipino citi1enship, and the 8ocal %ivil
Registrar of Baguio %ity should be ordered to annotate in her birth certifcate
her election of -ilipino citi1enship( $his %ourt adds that the petitionerIs
election of -ilipino citi1enship should be welco/ed by this country and
people because the petitioner has the choice to elect citi1enship of powerful
countries like the <nited States of A/erica and %hina, however, petitioner
has chosen -ilipino citi1enship because she grew up in this country, and has
learned to love the Philippines( 9er choice of electing -ilipino citi1enship is,
in fact, a testi/ony that /any of our people still wish to live in the
Philippines, and are very proud of our country(
B9?R?-7R?, the instant petition is hereby GRA)$?#( Petitioner )ora
-e Sagun y %han is hereby #?%8AR?# as -585P5)7 %5$5E?), having chosen or
elected -ilipino citi1enship(
12[12]

-or sure, this %ourt has consistently ruled that there is no proceeding established
by law, or the Rules for the 4udicial declaration of the citi1enship of an individual(
13[13]

$here is no specifc legislation authori1ing the institution of a 4udicial proceeding to
declare that a given person is part of our citi1enry(
14[14]
$his was our ruling in &ung 'an
Chu v. "epu(lic
15[15]
citing the early case of an v. "epu(lic of the )hilippines,
16[16]
where
we clearly stated.
<nder our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the 4udicial
declaration of the citi1enship of an individual( %ourts of 4ustice e6ist for
settle/ent of 4usticiable controversies, which i/ply a given right, legally
de/andable and enforceable, an act or o/ission violative of said right, and a
re/edy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right( As an
incident only of the ad4udication of the rights of the parties to a controversy,
11 [11]
Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te, (.R. )o. 17%'1$, July 3$, 2$$', %'! *+R, !1$, !2$.
12 [12]
Rollo, pp. 31-32.
13 [13]
Yung Uan Chu v. Republic, )o. --3!'73, ,pril 1!, 1'&&, 1%' *+R, %'3, %'7. Board of Commissioners v. Domingo, )o. --
2127!, July 31, 1'#3, & *+R, ##1, ##!.
1! [1!]
"d. at %'&. Tan v. Republic of the Philippines, 1$7 P/il. #32, #3! 01'#$1.
1% [1%]
"d. at %'7.
1# [1#]
*upra note 1! at #33. Republic v. addela, )os. -- 21##! and -- 21##%, 2ar/ 2&, 1'#', 27 *+R, 7$2, 7$%.
the court /ay pass upon, and /ake a pronounce/ent relative to their
status( 7therwise, such a pronounce/ent is beyond 4udicial power( 6 6 6
%learly, it was erroneous for the trial court to /ake a specifc declaration of
respondentIs -ilipino citi1enship as such pronounce/ent was not within the courtIs
co/petence(
As to the propriety of respondentIs petition seeking a 4udicial declaration of
election of Philippine citi1enship, it is i/perative that we deter/ine whether respondent
is re:uired under the law to /ake an election and if so, whether she has co/plied with
the procedural re:uire/ents in the election of Philippine citi1enship(
Bhen respondent was born on August 2, *"3", the governing charter was the *"33
%onstitution, which declares as citi1ens of the Philippines those whose /others are
citi1ens of the Philippines and elect Philippine citi1enship upon reaching the age of
/a4ority( Sec( *, Art( 5> of the *"33 %onstitution reads.
Section *( $he following are citi1ens of the Philippines.
6 6 6 6
&=' $hose whose /others are citi1ens of the Philippines and, upon
reaching the age of /a4ority, elect Philippine citi1enship(
<nder Article 5>, Section *&=' of the *"33 %onstitution, the citi1enship of a
legiti/ate child born of a -ilipino /other and an alien father followed the citi1enship of
the father, unless, upon reaching the age of /a4ority, the child elected Philippine
citi1enship( $he right to elect Philippine citi1enship was recogni1ed in the *"+3
%onstitution when it provided that GCtDhose who elect Philippine citi1enship pursuant to
the provisions of the %onstitution of nineteen hundred and thirty,fveH are citi1ens of the
Philippines(
17[17]
8ikewise, this recognition by the *"+3 %onstitution was carried over to
the *"2+ %onstitution which states that GCtDhose born before January *+, *"+3 of -ilipino
/others, who elect Philippine citi1enship upon reaching the age of /a4orityH are
Philippine citi1ens(
18[18]
5t should be noted, however, that the *"+3 and *"2+
%onstitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citi1enship should not be
understood as having a curative e@ect on any irregularity in the ac:uisition of citi1enship
for those covered by the *"33 %onstitution( 5f the citi1enship of a person was sub4ect to
challenge under the old charter, it re/ains sub4ect to challenge under the new charter
even if the 4udicial challenge had not been co//enced before the e@ectivity of the new
%onstitution(
19[19]

17 [17]
*e. 1031, ,rt. """, 1'73 +onstitution.
1& [1&]
*e. 1031, ,rt. "V, 1'&7 +onstitution.
1' [1']
Re! "pplication #or "dmission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching$ 3ar 2atter )o. '1!, 4tober 1, 1''', 31# *+R, 1,
7-&.
Being a legiti/ate child, respondentIs citi1enship followed that of her father who is
%hinese, unless upon reaching the age of /a4ority, she elects Philippine citi1enship( 5t is
a settled rule that only legiti/ate children follow the citi1enship of the father and that
illegiti/ate children are under the parental authority of the /other and follow her
nationality(
20[20]
An illegiti/ate child of -ilipina need not perfor/ any act to confer upon
hi/ all the rights and privileges attached to citi1ens of the PhilippinesF he auto/atically
beco/es a citi1en hi/self(
21[21]
But in the case of respondent, for her to be considered a
-ilipino citi1en, she /ust have validly elected Philippine citi1enship upon reaching the
age of /a4ority(
%o//onwealth Act &%(A(' )o( K3,
22[22]
enacted pursuant to Section *&=', Article 5>
of the *"33 %onstitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to
/ake a valid election of Philippine citi1enship, to wit.
Section *( $he option to elect Philippine citi1enship in accordance with
subsection &=', CSDection *, Article 5>, of the %onstitution shall be e6pressed
in a state/ent to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any
oAcer authori1ed to ad/inister oaths, and shall be fled with the nearest civil
registry( $he said party shall acco/pany the aforesaid state/ent with the
oath of allegiance to the %onstitution and the Govern/ent of the Philippines(
Based on the foregoing, the statutory for/alities of electing Philippine citi1enship
are. &*' a state/ent of election under oathF &' an oath of allegiance to the %onstitution
and Govern/ent of the PhilippinesF and &3' registration of the state/ent of election and
of the oath with the nearest civil registry(
23[23]
-urther/ore, no election of Philippine citi1enship shall be accepted for registration
under %(A( )o( K3 unless the party e6ercising the right of election has co/plied with the
re:uire/ents of the Alien Registration Act of *"3!( 5n other words, he should frst be
re:uired to register as an alien(
24[24]
Pertinently, the person electing Philippine
citi1enship is re:uired to fle a petition with the %o//ission of 5//igration and
#eportation &now Bureau of 5//igration' for the cancellation of his alien certifcate of
registration based on his aforesaid election of Philippine citi1enship and said 7Ace will
initially decide, based on the evidence presented the validity or invalidity of said
election(
25[25]
Afterwards, the sa/e is elevated to the 0inistry &now #epart/ent' of
Justice for fnal deter/ination and review(
26[26]

5t should be stressed that there is no specifc statutory or procedural rule which
authori1es the direct fling of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citi1enship
2$ [2$]
%o$ Sr. v. Ramos, (.R. )os. 1#7%#'-7$ and 171'!#, *eptember !, 2$$', %'& *+R, 2##, 2'!-2'%.
21 [21]
"d. at 2'%.
22 [22]
,) ,+5 PR4V"6")( F4R 578 2,))8R ") 97"+7 578 4P5"4) 54 8-8+5 P7"-"PP")8 +"5":8)*7"P *7,--
38 68+-,R86 3; P8R*4) 974*8 24578R "* , F"-"P")4 +"5":8), appro<ed on June 7, 1'!1.
23 [23]
a v. #ernande&$ 'r.$ (.R. )o. 1&3133, July 2#, 2$1$, #2% *+R, %##, %77.
2! [2!]
Ronaldo P. -edesma, ,) 4=5-")8 4F P7"-"PP")8 "22"(R,5"4) ,)6 +"5":8)*7"P -,9*, Vol. ", 2$$# ed., pp.
%2#.
2% [2%]
"d. at %27, iting 2emorandum 4rder dated ,ugust 1&, 1'%# o> t/e +"6.
2# [2#]
"d., iting 64J 4pinion )o. 1&2 dated ,ugust 1', 1'&2.
before the courts( $he special proceeding provided under Section , Rule *!2 of the
Rules of %ourt on Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil "egistr$, /erely allows
any interested party to fle an action for cancellation or correction of entry in the civil
registry, i.e., election, loss and recovery of citi1enship, which is not the relief prayed for
by the respondent(
Be that as it /ay, even if we set aside this procedural infr/ity, still the trial courtIs
conclusion that respondent duly elected Philippine citi1enship is erroneous since the
records undisputably show that respondent failed to co/ply with the legal re:uire/ents
for a valid election( Specifcally, respondent had not e6ecuted a sworn state/ent of her
election of Philippine citi1enship( $he only docu/entary evidence sub/itted by
respondent in support of her clai/ of alleged election was her oath of allegiance,
e6ecuted * years after she reached the age of /a4ority, which was unregistered( As
aptly pointed out by the petitioner, even assu/ing arguendo that respondentIs oath of
allegiance suAces, its e6ecution was not within a reasonable ti/e after respondent
attained the age of /a4ority and was not registered with the nearest civil registry as
re:uired under Section * of %(A( )o( K3( $he phrase Greasonable ti/eH has been
interpreted to /ean that the election should be /ade generally within three &3' years
fro/ reaching the age of /a4ority(
27[27]
0oreover, there was no satisfactory e6planation
pro@ered by respondent for the delay and the failure to register with the nearest local
civil registry(
Based on the foregoing circu/stances, respondent clearly failed to co/ply with the
procedural re:uire/ents for a valid and e@ective election of Philippine citi1enship(
Respondent cannot assert that the e6ercise of su@rage and the participation in election
e6ercises constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citi1enship since the law
specifcally lays down the re:uire/ents for ac:uisition of citi1enship by election( $he
/ere e6ercise of su@rage, continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and
other si/ilar acts showing e6ercise of Philippine citi1enship cannot take the place of
election of Philippine citi1enship( 9ence, respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the
intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine citi1enship when clearly she has
failed to validly elect Philippine citi1enship( As we held in Ching,
28[28]
the prescribed
procedure in electing Philippine citi1enship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking
process( All that is re:uired of the elector is to e6ecute an aAdavit of election of
Philippine citi1enship and, thereafter, fle the sa/e with the nearest civil registry( 9aving
failed to co/ply with the foregoing re:uire/ents, respondentIs petition before the trial
court /ust be denied(
27 [27]
Re! "pplication #or "dmission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching$ supra note 1' at '. a v. #ernande&$ 'r.$ supra note
23 at %7&.
2& [2&]
"d. at 12.
WHERE!RE, the petition is GRAN"E#. $he #ecision dated April 3, !!" of the
Regional $rial %ourt, Branch 3 of Baguio %ity in Spcl( Pro( %ase )o( *+,R is REVERSE#
$%& SE" ASI#E( $he petition for 4udicial declaration of election of Philippine citi1enship
fled by respondent )ora -e Sagun is hereby #ISMISSE# for lack of /erit(
)o costs(
S! !R#ERE#.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME '!UR"
0anila
$95R# #5>5S57)
G.R. N(. 175746 M$)*+ 12, 2008
'HARLES L. !NG, Petitioner,
vs(
REPU,LI' ! "HE PHILIPPINES, Respondent(
# ? % 5 S 5 7 )
-NARES.SAN"IAG!, J.:
$his petition for review on certiorari assails the April 3, !!K #ecision
*
of the %ourt of
Appeals in %A,G(R( %> )o( +K!23, which reversed and set aside the January *K, !!
#ecision

of the 0unicipal $rial %ourt of 0angaldan, Pangasinan in 8and Registration %ase

)o( "",!3, and the )ove/ber !, !!K Resolution
3
which denied petitionerIs /otion for
reconsideration(
$he antecedent facts are as follows(
7n July *, *""", petitioner %harles 8( 7ng &petitioner' in his behalf and as duly authori1ed
representative of his brothers, na/ely, Roberto, Alberto and %esar, fled an Application
for Registration of $itle
=
over 8ot *3"** &sub4ect lot' situated in Barangay Anolid,
0angaldan, Pangasinan with an area of fve hundred seventy four &3+=' s:uare /eters,
/ore or less( $hey alleged that they are the co,owners of the sub4ect lotF that the sub4ect
lot is their e6clusive property having ac:uired the sa/e by purchase fro/ spouses $ony
Bautista and Alicia >illa/il on August =, *""2F that the sub4ect lot is presently
unoccupiedF and that they and their predecessors,in,interest have been in open,
continuous and peaceful possession of the sub4ect lot in the concept of owners for /ore
than thirty &3!' years(
After due notice and publication, only respondent Republic of the Philippines
&respondent', represented by the 7Ace of the Solicitor General, opposed the application
for registration of title( Respondent asserted that neither applicants nor their
predecessors,in,interest have been in open, continuous, e6clusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the sub4ect lot since June *, *"=3 or earlier as re:uired by
Section =2&b' of %o//onwealth Act )o( *=*, as a/ended by Presidential #ecree &P(#('
)o( *!+3F that applicants failed to adduce any /uni/ent of title to prove their clai/sF
that the ta6 declaration appended to the application does not appear genuine and
/erely shows pretended possession of recent vintageF that the application was fled
beyond the period allowed under P(#( )o( 2"F and that the sub4ect lot is part of the
public do/ain which cannot be the sub4ect of private appropriation(
7n January *K, !!, the trial court rendered a #ecision in favor of petitioner and his
brothers, vi1.
$he foregoing evidences presented by the applicant indubitably established suAcient
basis to grant the applicant &sic' for registration( 7riginally, the whole parcel of land was
owned by spouses $eoflo Abellara and Abella %har/ine who ac:uired the sa/e by virtue
of a #eed of Sale fro/ %ynthia %acho, Agustin %acho, Jr(, Jas/in %acho, Jover %acho and
8auro %acho( 8ater, they sold the sa/e parcel of land to spouses $ony %( >illa/il and
Alicia Bautista, who in turn sold the sa/e land to herein applicants(
$he sa/e parcel of land has been declared in the na/e of the applicant and her
predecessors,in,interest and its ta6es has &sic' been religiously paid(
$he said circu/stances further show that the possession and ownership of the applicant
and her &sic' predecessors,in,interest over the sa/e parcel of land has &sic' been
continuous and peaceful under bona fde clai/ of ownership before the fling of the
instant application for registration on CJuly *, *"""D(
B9?R?-7R?, after confr/ing the 7rder of General #efault, the %ourt hereby orders and
decrees the registration of a parcel of land as shown on plan ap,!*,!!=2"+ approved by
the Bureau of 8and&s' situated in Barangay Anolid, 0angaldan, Pangasinan, containing
an area of -ive 9undred Seventy -our &3+=' s:uare /eters, sub4ect of the application for
registration of title, in accordance with Presidential #ecree )o( *3", in favor of %9AR85?
8( 7)G in his behalf and as representative of his brothers na/ely, R7B?R$7 8( 7)G,
A8B?R$7 8( 7)G and %?SAR 8( 7)G(
-urnish copies of this #ecision to the 7Ace of the Solicitor General, 0akati %ity, 0etro
0anila, the 7Ace of the Provincial Prosecutor, #agupan %ity, Atty( %elestino #o/ingo Jr(,
the 7Ace of the 8and Registration Authority, Lue1on %ity, as well as the applicant(
S7 7R#?R?#(
3
Aggrieved, respondent appealed to the %ourt of Appeals which rendered the assailed
#ecision, the dispositive portion of which reads.
B9?R?-7R?, the instant appeal is GRA)$?#( Accordingly, the decision of the court a :uo
granting the application for registration of title of applicants,appellees is R?>?RS?# and
S?$ AS5#?( )o pronounce/ent as to costs(
S7 7R#?R?#(
K
5n reversing the decision of the trial court, the %ourt of Appeals found that the sub4ect lot
is part of the alienable and disposable lands of the public do/ain( $hus, it was
incu/bent upon petitioner to prove that they possessed the sub4ect lot in the nature and
for the duration re:uired by law( 9owever, petitioner failed to prove that he or his
predecessors,in,interest have been in adverse possession of the sub4ect lot in the
concept of owner since June *, *"=3 or earlier as /andated by Section *=&*' of P(#(
*3"( 5t noted that the earliest ta6 declaration which petitioner presented is dated *"+*(
%onse:uently, petitioner could not fairly clai/ possession of the land prior to *"+*(
)either was petitioner able to prove that he or his predecessors,in,interest actually
occupied the sub4ect lot prior to the fling of the application( $hus, the trial court erred in
granting the application for registration of title over the sub4ect lot(
9ence, this petition raising the following issues.
*( B9?$9?R 7R )7$ P?$5$57)?R, $7G?$9?R B5$9 95S BR7$9?RS, )A0?8M,
R7B?R$7 8( 7)G, A8B?R$7 8( 7)G A)# %?EAR 8( 7)G, 9A>? R?G5S$RAB8?
7B)?RS95P 7>?R $9? R?A8 PR7P?R$M S<BJ?%$ 0A$$?R 7- 8A)# R?G5S$RA$57)
%AS? )7( "",!3, A)#
( B9?$9?R 7R )7$ $9? -5)#5)GS A)# %7)%8<S57) 7- $9? -7R0?R SP?%5A8
-7<R$9 #5>5S57) 7- $9? %7<R$ 7- APP?A8S $9A$ $9? S<BJ?%$ R?A8 PR7P?R$M
5S A P<B85% 8A)# 5S %7RR?%$(
+
$he petition lacks /erit(
Section *=&*' of P(#( *3" &NProperty Registration #ecreeN', as a/ended, provides O
S?%( *=( Bho /ay apply( P$he following persons /ay fle in the proper %ourt of -irst
5nstance an application for registration of title to land, whether personally or through
their duly authori1ed representatives.
&*' $hose who by the/selves or through their predecessors,in,interest have been in
open, continuous, e6clusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public do/ain under a bona fde clai/ of ownership since June
*, *"=3, or earlier(
$hus, pursuant to the afore:uoted provision of law, applicants for registration of title
/ust prove. &*' that the sub4ect land for/s part of the disposable and alienable lands of
the public do/ain, and &' that they have been in open, continuous, e6clusive and
notorious possession and occupation of the sa/e under a bona fde clai/ of ownership
since June *, *"=3, or earlier(
2
$hese re:uisites involve :uestions of fact which are not
proper in a petition for review on certiorari( -actual fndings of the court a :uo are
generally binding on this %ourt e6cept for certain recogni1ed e6ceptions, as is the case
here, where the trial court and the %ourt of Appeals arrived at con;icting fndings(
"
After
a careful review of the records, we sustain the fndings and conclusions of the %ourt of
Appeals(
$here is no dispute that the sub4ect lot is classifed as alienable and disposable land of
the public do/ain( $he Report
*!
dated January *+, !!! of the Bureau of 8ands stated
that the sub4ect lot is Nwithin the alienable and disposable 1one as classifed under
Pro4ect 3! 8(%( 0ap )o( K"2 and released and classifed as such on )ove/ber *,
*"+(N
**
$his fnding is, likewise, e/bodied in the Report
*
dated January +, *""" of the
#epart/ent of ?nviron/ent and )atural Resources %o//unity ?nviron/ent and )atural
Resources 7Ace &#?)R,%?)R7' and the blue print %opy
*3
of the plan covering the
sub4ect lot( 9owever, petitioner failed to prove that he or his predecessors,in,interest
have been in open, continuous, e6clusive and notorious possession and occupation of
the sub4ect lot since June *, *"=3 or earlier(
$he records show that petitioner and his brothers bought the sub4ect lot fro/ spouses
$ony Bautista and Alicia >illa/il on August =, *""2,
*=
who in turn purchased the sa/e
fro/ spouses $eoflo Abellera and Abella Sar/en on January *K, *""+(
*3
$he latter
bought the sub4ect lot fro/ %ynthia, Agustin Jr(, Jas/in, 7/ir and 8auro, all surna/ed
%acho, on July *!, *"+"(
*K
$he earliest ta6 declaration which was sub/itted in evidence
was $a6 #eclaration )o( 3K!K
*+
issued in *"+* in the na/es of spouses Agustin %acho
and ?ufrosinia Baustista( Bhile ta6 declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership,
they constitute good indicia of possession in the concept of owner and a clai/ of title
over the sub4ect property(
*2
?ven if we were to tack petitionerIs clai/ of ownership over
the sub4ect lot to that of their alleged predecessors,in,interest, spouses Agustin %acho
and ?ufrosinia Baustista in *"+*, still this would fall short of the re:uired possession fro/
June *, *"=3 or earlier(*avvphi*
-urther, as correctly pointed by the %ourt of Appeals, possession alone is not suAcient to
ac:uire title to alienable lands of the public do/ain because the law re:uires possession
and occupation( As held in Republic v( Alconaba.
*"
$he law speaks of possession and occupation( Since these words are separated by the
con4unction and, the clear intention of the law is not to /ake one synony/ous with the
other( Possession is broader than occupation because it includes constructive possession(
Bhen, therefore, the law adds the word occupation, it seeks to deli/it the all
enco/passing e@ect of constructive possession( $aken together with the words open,
continuous, e6clusive and notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to :ualify, his possession /ust not be a /ere fction( Actual
possession of a land consists in the /anifestation of acts of do/inion over it of such a
nature as a party would naturally e6ercise over his own property(
!
Petitioner ad/itted that after he and his brothers bought the sub4ect lot fro/ spouses
$ony Bautista and Alicia >illa/il in *""2, neither he nor his brothers actually occupied
the sub4ect lot(
*
)o i/prove/ents were /ade thereon and the /ost that they did was to
visit the lot on several occasions(

PetitionerIs predecessor,in,interest, $ony Bautista

testifed that he and his wife never actually occupied the sub4ect lot fro/ the ti/e they
bought the sa/e fro/ spouses $eoflo Abellera and Abella Sar/en in *""+(
3
Aside fro/
these two testi/onies, no other evidence was presented to establish the character of the
possession of the sub4ect lot by petitionerIs other alleged predecessors,in,interest(
%learly, petitionerIs evidence failed to establish specifc acts of ownership to
substantiate the clai/ that he and his predecessors,in,interest possessed and occupied
the sub4ect lot in the nature and duration re:uired by law(
$he burden of proof in land registration cases rests on the applicant who /ust show by
clear, positive and convincing evidence that his alleged possession and occupation of the
land is of the nature and duration re:uired by law(
=
<nfortunately, petitionerIs evidence
do not constitute the Nwell,nigh incontrovertibleN evidence necessary in cases of this
nature(
3
Accordingly, the %ourt of Appeals did not err in reversing the #ecision of the
trial court and in denying his application for registration of title over the sub4ect lot(
B9?R?-7R?, in view of the foregoing, the petition is #?)5?#( $he April 3, !!K
#ecision of the %ourt of Appeals in %A,G(R( %> )o( +K!23 which reversed and set aside
the January *K, !! #ecision of the 0unicipal $rial %ourt of 0angaldan, Pangasinan in
8and Registration %ase )o( "",!3, and the )ove/ber !, !!K Resolution denying the
/otion for reconsideration, are A--5R0?#(
%osts against petitioner(
S7 7R#?R?#(
GA88?G7 vs( >?RA
-acts.
$his is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the %A aAr/ing the
decision of the %-5 of 8eyte, which declared illegal the petitionerIs election to the oAce
of the /unicipal /ayor of Abuyog, 8eyte in the election of #ec( *"=!, on the ground that
he did not /eet the residence :ualifcation( Gallego is a native of Abuyog, 8eyte( After
his studies, he was e/ployed as a schoolteacher in %atar/an, Sa/ar, as well as in so/e
/unicipalities in 8eyte( 5n *"3+, as a /unicipal /ayor in Abuyog 8eyte, but lost( 5n June
*"32, he worked in 0alaybalay Bukidnon in a plantation of the Bureau of -orestry to
/ake up for the fnancial drawback caused by his loss in the previous election, and
stayed there until he resigned in Sept( *"=!( Gallego registered hi/self as an elector in
Bukidnon and voted there in the election for asse/bly/en held in #ec( *"32, and in Jan(
*"=!,
9e obtained and paid for his residence cert( fro/ the /unicipal treasurer of
0alaybalay, in which certifcate it was stated that he had resided in the said /unicipality
for one and a half year( $he %A declared that Gallego lost his do/icile in Abuyog 8eyte at
the ti/e he was elected /ayor there on the grounds that.
*(9e registered as a voter in 0alaybalay, Bukidnon
(9e voted in 0alaybalay in the *"32 election for asse/bly/en
3(9e obtained a residence cert fro/ the /unicipality of 0alaybalay
5SS<?QS.
Bhether or not Gallego lost his do/icile of origin in Abuyog, 8eyte and ac:uired a
new do/icile in 0alaybalay, Bukidnon(
9?8#.
Mes( Gallego did not lose his do/icile in Abuyog by working in 0alaybalay as an
e/ployee, registering as voter there and securing his residence certifcate there for*"=!(
$he decision of the %A is reversed(
5n the defnition of GresidenceH in the election law under the *"33 %onstitution, it
states that in order to ac:uire a do/icile by choice, there /ust concur. *(Residence or
a bodily presence in the new locality( An i nt ent i on t o re/ai n t here3(An
intention to abandon the old do/icile $he purpose to re/ain in the do/icile should
be for an 5)#?-5)5$? period of ti/e( $he court believed that Gallego had no intention to
stay in 0alaybalay indefnitelybecause. *(Bhen he was e/ployed as a teacher in Sa/ar,
he always returned in Abuyog and even resigned when he ran for oAce in *"3+ (9is
departure was only for the purpose of /aking up for the fnancial drawback caused by
his loss in the election3(9e did not take his wife and children to 0alaybalay with
hi/ =(9e bought a piece of land in Abuyog and did not avail of the land in the
plantation o@ered to hi/ by the govern/ent 3(9e visited his fa/ily no less than three
ti/es despite the great distance between Abuyog, 8eyte and 0alaybalay Bukidnon $he
court said that the /anifest intent of the law in f6ing a residence :ualifcation is
to.Ge6clude a stranger or a newco/er, unac:uainted with the conditions and needs of a
co//unity and not identifed with the latter, fro/ an elective oAce to serve that
co//unity(H
R(/0$1&23 45 R"', 226 S'RA 408
$*65: Philip Ro/ualde1, the petitioner, is a natural born citi1en of the Philippines, the
son of the for/er Governor of 8eyte, Ben4a/in NRokoyN Ro/ualde1, and nephew of the
then -irst 8ady 5/elda 0arcos( So/eti/e in the early part of *"2!, the petitioner, in
consonance with his decision to establish his legal residence at Barangay 0albog, $olosa,
8eyte, caused the construction of his residential house therein( 9e soon thereafter also
served as Barangay %aptain of the place where he voted( After the people power,
petitioner left the country and ;ed to A/erica for asylu/( Bhen Ro/ualde1 arrived in
the Philippines in #ece/ber *""*, he did not delay his return to his residence at 0albog,
$olosa, 8eyte( #uring the registration of voters conducted by the %70?8?% on -ebruary
*, *"" for the Synchroni1ed )ational and 8ocal ?lection scheduled for 0ay **, *"",
petitioner registered hi/self anew as a voter at Precinct )o( " of 0albog, $olosa, 8eyte(
7n -ebruary *, *"", #onato Advincula, respondent, fled a petition with the 0$% of
$olosa, 8eyte, praying that Ro/ualde1 be e6cluded fro/ the list of voters in Precinct )o(
" of 0albog, $olosa, 8eyte, under BP 22* and RA +*KK alleging that Ro/ualde1 was a
resident of 0assachusetts, <(S(A(F that his profession and occupation was in the <(S(A(F
that he had 4ust recently arrived in the PhilippinesF and that he did not have the re:uired
one,year residence in the Philippines and the si6,/onth residence in $olosa to :ualify hi/
to register as a voter in Barangay 0albog, $olosa, 8eyte( Ro/ualde1 contends that he has
been a resident of $olosa, 8eyte, since the early *"2!Ss, and that he has not abandoned
his said residence by his physical absence therefro/ during the period fro/ *"2K up to
the third week of #ece/ber *""*( After due hearing, the 0unicipal %ourt of $olosa, 8eyte
held in favor of the petitioner Advincula then appealed the case to the respondent court
then it rendered the assailed decision that the petitioner is dis:ualifed to register as a
voter for the *"" elections and hereby reverses the decision of the lower court in toto(
9ence, this recourse(
I5502: Bhether or not the respondent court erred in fnding the petitioner to have
voluntarily left the country and abandoned his residence in 0albog, $olosa, 8eyte(
H21&: B9?R?-7R? PR?05S?S %7)S5#?R?#, the court fnds the respondent to be a
resident of Brgy( 0albog, $olosa, 8eyte and :ualifed to register as a voter thereat( 9ence,
the instant petition for e6clusion of Philip G( Ro/ualde1 fro/ the list of voter of Precinct
)o( ", 0albog, $olosa, 8eyte is hereby ordered #?)5?# and petition #5S05SS?#(
ARBAMA),M7<$9 vs %70?8?%, 333 S%RA 3*2
$*65: $he petitioners, as representatives the youth sector, seeks to direct the %70?8?%
to conduct a special registration before the 0ay *=, !!* General ?lections, of new
voters ages *2 to * because around four /illion youth failed to register on or before the
#ece/ber +, !!! deadline set by the respondent under Republic Act )o( 2*2" &>oterSs
Registration Act of *""K'( Acting on the cla/or of the students and civic leaders, Senator
Raul Roco, %hair/an if the %o//ittee on ?lectoral Refor/s, Su@rage, and PeopleSs
Participation, conducted a hearing attended by %o//issioner 8u1vi/inda G( $ancangco
and Ralph %( 8antion, together with %onsultant Resurreccion E( Borra &now
%o//issioner'( 7n January ", !!*, %o//issioners $ancangco and 8antion sub/itted a
0e/orandu/ )o( !!*,!+ on the Report on the Re:uest for a $wo,day Additional
Registration of )ew >oters 7nly( 5//ediately, %o//issioner Borra called a consultation
/eeting a/ong regional heads and representatives, and a nu/ber of senior sta@ headed
by ?6ecutive #irector 0a/asapunod Agua/( 5t was the consensus of the group, with the
e6ception of #irector Jose $olentino, Jr(, of the AS#, to disapproved the re:uest for
additional registration of voters on the ground that Section 2 of R(A( 2*2" e6plicitly
provides that no registration shall be conducted during the period starting one hundred
twenty &*!' days before a regular election and that the %o//ission has no /ore ti/e
left to acco/plish all pre,election activities( 7n -ebruary 2, !!*, the %70?8?% issued
Resolution )( 332= denying the re:uest to conduct a two,day additional registration of
new voters( Aggrieved by the denial, petitioners ARBAMA),Mouth, S%AP, <%S%, 0ASP,
R70P58 55 &M7<$9' et( al( fled before this %ourt the instant Petition for %ertiorari and
0anda/us which seeks to set aside and nullify respondent %70?8?%Ss Resolution andQor
to declare Section 2 of R(A( 2*2" unconstitutional insofar as said provision e@ectively
causes the disenfranchise/ent of petitioners and others si/ilarly situated( 8ikewise,
petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of /anda/us directing respondent %70?8?%
to conduct a special registration of new voters and to ad/it for registration petitioners
and other si/ilarly situated young -ilipinos to :ualify the/ to vote in the 0ay *=, !!*
General ?lections( 7n 0arch !", !!*, herein petitioner 0ichelle Betito, a student of the
<niversity of the Philippines, likewise fled a Petition for 0anda/us, praying that this
%ourt direct the %70?8?% to provide for another special registration day under the
continuing registration provision under the ?lection code( $his court resolved to
consolidate the two petitions(
I5502:
a( Bhether or not respondent %70?8?% co//itted grave abuse of discretion in
issuing %70?8?% Resolution dated -ebruary 2, !!*(
b( Bhether or not this %ourt can co/pel respondent %70?8?%, through the
e6traordinary writ of /anda/us, to conduct a special registration of new voters
during the period between the %70?8?%Ss i/posed #ece/ber +, !!! deadline
and the 0ay *=, !!* general elections(
H21&: Applying the foregoing, this %ourt is of the fr/ view that respondent %70?8?% did
not co//it an abuse of discretion, /uch less be ad4udged to have co//itted the sa/e
in so/e patent, whi/sical and arbitrary /anner, in issuing Resolution )o, 332= which, in
respondentSs own ter/s, resolved Nto deny the re:uest to conduct a two,day additional
registration of new voters on -ebruary *+ and *2, !!*(N
-inally, the %ourt likewise takes 4udicial notice of the fact that the President has issued
Procla/ation )o( *3 calling %ongress to a Special Session on 0arch *2, !!*, to allow
the conduct of Special Registration of new voters( 9ouse Bill )o(, *"3! has been fled
before the 8ower 9ouse, which bills seeks to a/end R(A( 2*2" as to the *!,day
prohibitive period provided for under said law( Si/ilarly, Senate Bill )o( +K was fled
before the Senate, with the sa/e intention to a/end the aforesaid law and, in e@ect,
allow the conduct of special registration before the 0ay *=, !!* General ?lections($his
%ourt views the foregoing factual circu/stances as a clear inti/ation on the part of both
the e6ecutive and legislative depart/ents that a legal obstacle indeed stands in the way
of the conduct by the %o//ission on ?lections of a special registration before 0ay *=,
!!* General ?lections(
%eni1a vs %70?8?%
E+ual )rotection% , -err$.andering
TTHGerry/anderingH is a Gter/ e/ployed to describe an apportion/ent of representative
districts so contrived as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power(H TT
Pursuant to Batas Blg 3* &enacted #ec *"+"', %70?8?% adopted Resolution )o( *=*
which e@ectively bars voters in chartered cities &unless otherwise provided by their
charter', highly urbani1ed &those earning above P=! 0' cities, and co/ponent cities
&whose charters prohibit the/' fro/ voting in provincial elections( $he %ity of 0andaue,
on the other hand, is a co/ponent city )7$ a chartered one or a highly urbani1ed one(
So when %70?8?% added 0andaue to the list of ! cities that cannot vote in provincial
elections, %eni1a, in behalf of the other /e/bers of #7?RS &#e/ocracy or ?6tinction.
Resolved to Succeed' :uestioned the constitutionality of BB 3* and the %70?8?%
resolution( $hey said that the regulationQrestriction of voting being i/posed is a
curtail/ent of the right to su@rage( -urther, petitioners clai/ that political and
gerry/andering /otives were behind the passage of Batas Blg( 3* and Section "K of the
%harter of 0andaue %ity( $hey contend that the Province of %ebu is politically and
historically known as an opposition bailiwick and of the total "3,+*K registered voters in
the province, close to one,third &*Q3' of the entire province of %ebu would be barred fro/
voting for the provincial oAcials of the province of %ebu( %eni1a also said that the
constituents of 0andaue never ratifed their charter( %eni1a likewise aver that Sec 3 of
BB 223 insofar as it classifes cities including %ebu %ity as highly urbani1ed as the only
basis for not allowing its electorate to vote for the provincial oAcials is inherently and
palpably unconstitutional in that such classifcation is not based on substantial
distinctions ger/ane to the purpose of the law which in e@ect provides for and regulates
the e6ercise of the right of su@rage, and therefore such unreasonable classifcation
a/ounts to a denial of e:ual protection(
ISSUE: Bhether or not there is a violation of e:ual protection(
HEL#: $he thrust of the *"+3 %onstitution is towards the fullest autono/y of local
govern/ent units( 5n the #eclaration of Principles and State Policies, it is stated that
G$he State shall guarantee and pro/ote the autono/y of local govern/ent units to
ensure their fullest develop/ent as self,reliant co//unities( $he petitioners allegation of
gerry/andering is of no /erit, it has no factual or legal basis( $he %onstitutional
re:uire/ent that the creation, division, /erger, abolition, or alteration of the boundary
of a province, city, /unicipality, or barrio should be sub4ect to the approval by the
/a4ority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the govern/ental unit or units a@ected is a
new re:uire/ent that ca/e into being only with the *"+3 %onstitution( 5t is prospective
in character and therefore cannot a@ect the creation of the %ity of 0andaue which ca/e
into e6istence on * June *"K"(
$he classifcation of cities into highly urbani1ed cities and co/ponent cities on the basis
of their regular annual inco/e is based upon substantial distinction( $he revenue of a
city would show whether or not it is capable of e6istence and develop/ent as a relatively
independent social, econo/ic, and political unit( 5t would also show whether the city has
suAcient econo/ic or industrial activity as to warrant its independence fro/ the
province where it is geographically situated( %ities with s/aller inco/e need the
continued support of the provincial govern/ent thus 4ustifying the continued
participation of the voters in the election of provincial oAcials in so/e instances(
$he petitioners also contend that the voters in 0andaue %ity are denied e:ual protection
of the law since the voters in other co/ponent cities are allowed to vote for provincial
oAcials( $he contention is without /erit( $he practice of allowing voters in one
co/ponent city to vote for provincial oAcials and denying the sa/e privilege to voters in
another co/ponent city is a /atter of legislative discretion which violates neither the
%onstitution nor the voterIs right of su@rage(