TECSON VS COMELEC

FPJs Citizenship
- Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on
those whom the state believes are deserving
of the privilege.
- precious heritage, as well as an inestimable
acquisition,
- ISSUE: The issue of citizenship is brought up to
challenge the qualifications of a presidential
candidate to hold the highest office of the
land.
- Is Fernando Poe, Jr., a natural-born
Filipino or is he not?
- FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of
an alien mother.
- petitioners contention: first, Allan F. Poe
contracted a prior marriage to a certain
Paulita Gomez before his marriage to
Bessie Kelley and, second, even if no
such prior marriage had existed, Allan F.
Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year
after the birth of respondent.
- On 23 January 2004, the COMELEC
dismissed SPA No. 04-003 for lack of
merit.
- Decisions
of
the
COMELEC
on
disqualification cases may be reviewed
by the Supreme Court per Rule 64
- Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the
1987 Constitution - The provision is an
innovation of the 1987 Constitution.
- ordinarily, contest" in reference to a postelection scenario.
- Election contests consist of either an
election protest or a quo warranto
- Rules of the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal : The rules categorically speak
of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over
contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications of the "President" or
"Vice-President", of the Philippines, and
not of "candidates" for President or VicePresident.
- It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court, defined by Section
4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution,

would not include cases directly brought

before it, questioning the qualifications
of a candidate for the presidency or
vice-presidency before the elections are
held.
CITIZENSHIP:
- History of Citizenship
F Aristotle:man
who
shares
in
the
administration of justice and in holding of
an office
F The concept grew to include one who would
both govern and be governed, for which
qualifications like autonomy, judgment and
loyalty could be expected
F ideal setting, a citizen was active in public life
and fundamentally willing to submit his
private interests to the general interest of
society.
F 18th century: Civil citizenship: established
rights for individual freedom
F 19th century: political citizenship: right to
participate in exercise of political power
F 20th century: social citizenship: right of a
citizen into economic well-being and social
security
F SPANISH-PRESENT: no such terms and Phil
citizens during spanish regime
F spanish laws: Novisima Recopilacion,
whether the law was extended to the
Philippines remained to be the subject of
differing views among experts
F The Spanish Constitution of 1876 was never
extended to the Philippine Islands because
of the express mandate of its Article 89
F It was only the Civil Code of Spain, made
effective in this jurisdiction on 18
December 1889, which came out with the
first categorical enumeration of who were
Spanish citizens. F TREATY OF PARIS:Upon the ratification of
the treaty, and pending legislation by the
United States Congress on the subject, the
native inhabitants of the Philippines
ceased to be Spanish subjects. Although
they did not become American citizens,
they, however, also ceased to be "aliens"
under American laws and were thus issued

passports describing them to be citizens of

the Philippines entitled to the protection of
the United States.
F Controversy arose on to the status of children
born in the Philippines from 11 April 1899
to 01 July 1902, during which period no
citizenship law was extant in the
Philippines. Weight was given to the view,
articulated in jurisprudential writing at the
time, that the common law principle of jus
sol
F The term "citizens of the Philippine Islands"
appeared for the first time in the Philippine
Bill of 1902, also commonly referred to as
the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, the first
comprehensive legislation of the Congress
of the United States on the Philippines
F The word "Filipino" was used by William H.
Taft, the first Civil Governor General in the
Philippines when he initially made mention
of it in his slogan, "The Philippines for the
Filipinos.
F The 1987 Constitution generally adopted the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution, except
for subsection (3) thereof that aimed to
correct the irregular situation generated by
the questionable proviso in the 1935
Constitution.
- CITIZENSHIP PROPER
F "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
"those who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship.
F four modes of acquiring citizenship
1. naturalization,
2. jus soli,
3. res judicata
F jus sanguines
- Only two, jus soli and jus sanguinis, could
qualify a person to being a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines.
F Jus soli did not last long with the adoption of
1935 conti
F Jus Sanguines or blood relationship is the
primary basis of citizenship by birth
F documentary evidence:

- paternal grandfather:Lorenzo Pou, married

to Marta Reyes, the father of Allan F.
Poe.(identified him to be a Filipino, a
resident of San Carlos, Pangasinan, and
84 years old at the time of his death)
- The certificate of birth of the father of FPJ,
Allan F. Poe, showed that he was born
on 17 May 1915 to an Espaol father,
Lorenzo Pou, and a mestiza Espaol
mother, Marta Reyes.
- The birth certificate of FPJ, would disclose
that he was born on 20 August 1939 to
Allan F. Poe, a Filipino, twenty-four
years old, married to Bessie Kelly, an
American citizen, twenty-one years old
and married.
- FACTS:
F The parents of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and
Bessie Kelley;
F FPJ was born to them on 20 August 1939;
F Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married
to each other on 16 September, 1940;
F The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo Poe;
and
F At the time of his death on 11 September
1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old.
F Being public documents, the death
certificate of Lorenzo Pou, the
marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe
and Bessie Kelly, and the birth
certificate of FPJ, constitute prima
facie proof of their contents.
F The death certificate of Lorenzo Pou
would indicate that he died on 11
September 1954, at the age of 84
years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan.
F It could thus be assumed that Lorenzo Pou
was born sometime in the year 1870 when
the Philippines was still a colony of Spain.
Petitioner would argue that Lorenzo Pou
was not in the Philippines during the
crucial period of from 1898 to 1902
considering that there was no existing
record about such fact in the Records
Management and Archives Office.
F Petitioner, however, likewise failed to show
that Lorenzo Pou was at any other place

during the same period. In his death

certificate,
F In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or
at least to presume, that the place of
residence of a person at the time of his
death was also his residence before death.
F It would be extremely doubtful if the Records
Management and Archives Office would
have had complete records of all residents
of the Philippines from 1898 to 1902.
F Civil Code of Spain, which was in force in the
Philippines from 08 December 1889 up
until the day prior to 30 August 1950 when
the Civil Code of the Philippines took
effect, acknowledgment was required to
establish filiation or paternity.
F Acknowledgment
was
either
judicial
(compulsory) or voluntary.
F Judicial or compulsory acknowledgment was
possible only if done during the lifetime of
the putative parent;
F voluntary acknowledgment could only be had
in a record of birth, a will, or a public
document.
F In order that the birth certificate could then be
utilized to prove voluntary acknowledgment
of filiation or paternity, the certificate was
required to be signed or sworn to by the
father. The failure of such requirement
rendered the same useless as being an
authoritative document of recognition.
F Pareja vs. Pareja: document as proof of
voluntary acknowledgment:executed by
private individuals which must be
authenticated by notaries, and those
issued by competent public officials by
reason of their office.
F Authentic writing: include a public instrument
(one duly acknowledged before a notary
public or other competent official) or a
private writing admitted by the father to be
his
F Section 39, Rule 130, of the Rules of Court
provides Act or Declaration about
pedigree. (sister of Bessie Kelley Poe)
testified that Alla F Poe recognised his own

paternal relationship w FPJ

- BERNAS: We must analyze these cases and
ask what the lis mota was in each of them. If
the pronouncement of the Court on jus
sanguinis was on the lis mota, the
pronouncement would be a decision
constituting doctrine under the rule of stare
decisis. But if the pronouncement was
irrelevant to the lis mota, the pronouncement
would not be a decision but a mere obiter
dictum which did not establish doctrine. I
therefore invite the Court to look closely into
these cases.
- What is the relevance of legitimacy or
illegitimacy to elective public service? What
possible state interest can there be for
disqualifying an illegitimate child from
becoming a public officer. It was not the fault
of the child that his parents had illicit liaison.
Why deprive the child of the fullness of
political rights for no fault of his own? To
disqualify an illegitimate child from holding an
important public office is to punish him for the
indiscretion of his parents. There is neither
justice nor rationality in that. And if there is
neither justice nor rationality in the
distinction, then the distinction transgresses
the equal protection clause and must be
reprobated - Bernas
- The fact of the matter perhaps the most
significant consideration is that the 1935
Constitution, the fundamental law prevailing
on the day, month and year of birth of
respondent FPJ, can never be more explicit
than it is. Providing neither conditions nor
distinctions, the Constitution states that
among the citizens of the Philippines are
those whose fathers are citizens of the
Philippines. There utterly is no cogent
justification to prescribe conditions or
distinctions where there clearly are none
provided.
- HELD:
F Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of
Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the
presumption that having died in 1954 at 84
years old, Lorenzo would have been born

sometime in the year 1870, when the

Philippines was under Spanish rule, and
that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of
residence upon his death in 1954, in the
absence of any other evidence, could have
well been his place of residence before
death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have
benefited
from
the
en
masse
Filipinization that the Philippine Bill had
effected in 1902. That citizenship (of
Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would thereby
extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of
respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution,
during which regime respondent FPJ has
seen first light, confers citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens
regardless of whether such children are
legitimate or illegitimate.
F But while the totality of the evidence may not
establish conclusively that respondent FPJ
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
the evidence on hand still would
preponderate in his favor enough to hold
that he cannot be held guilty of having
made a material misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy in violation of
Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the
Omnibus Election

REPUBLIC VS LIM
F

An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where

the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant
facts have been fully and properly developed, where
opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish
the opposite partys case, and where the evidence has been
thoroughly weighed and considered.
F PETITIONER: respondent did not comply with the constitutional
requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she reached
the age of majority.
Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which
provides that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of
a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the
citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of
majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship.
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, that legitimate
children born of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine
citizenship by expressing such intention in a statement to
be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any
officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed
with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall
accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
F

Philippines.
F Plainly, the
above constitutional and statutory
requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply
only to legitimate children.
F These do not apply in the case of respondent who was
concededly an illegitimate child, considering that her
Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married.
F As such, she was not required to comply with said
constitutional and statutory requirements to become a
Filipino citizen. By being an illegitimate child of a
Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a
Filipino upon birth.
F Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without having
to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of
majority.
F The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship.

CO VS HRET
F

When may the Court inquire into acts of the Electoral Tribunals
under our constitutional grants of power?
F in the exercise of this Court's so-called extraordinary
jurisdiction
F upon a determination that the Tribunal's decision or
resolution was rendered without or in excess of its
jurisdiction,
F very clear unmitigated ERROR, manifestly constituting such
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION that there has to be a
remedy for such abuse.
F will constitute a denial of due process.

- CITIZENSHIP
- ONG TE: Grand father of Jose Ong; obtain
a certificate of residence from the then
Spanish colonial administration.
- A priori, there can be no other logical
conclusion but to educe that Ong Te
qualified as a Filipino citizen under the
provisions of section 4 of the Philippine
Bill of 1902. (Those without such
papers, who may have acquired
domicile in any town in the Monarchy)
- JOSE ONG CHUAN: Father, Married
Agripina Lao, NBF. Granted
naturalisation and declared FILIPINO
CITIZEN by CFI
- The Court interprets Section 1, Paragraph 3
above as applying not only to those who
elect Philippine citizenship after February 2,
1987 but also to those who, having been

born of Filipino mothers, elected citizenship

before that date. (before or after jan 17,
1973)
- The provision in Paragraph 3 was intended to
correct an unfair position which discriminates
against Filipino women.
- PROBLEM:The purpose of that provision is to
remedy an inequitable situation. Between
1935 and 1973 when we were under the
1935 Constitution, those born of Filipino
fathers but alien mothers were natural-born
Filipinos. However, those born of Filipino
mothers but alien fathers would have to elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority; and if they do elect, they become
Filipino citizens but not natural-born Filipino
citizens.
- significantly reveals the intent of the framers.
To make the provision prospective from
February 3, 1987 is to give a narrow
interpretation resulting in an inequitable
situation. It must also be retroactive.
- To expect the respondent to have formally or in
writing elected citizenship when he came of
age is to ask for the unnatural and
unnecessary. The reason is obvious. He
was already a citizen. Not only was his
mother a natural born citizen but his father
had been naturalized when the respondent
was only nine (9) years old. \\orencio Mallare
(59 SCRA 45 [1974]), the Court held that the
exercise of the right of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises constitute a
positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship.
- In Re: Floorencio Mallare (59 SCRA 45 [1974]),
the Court held that the exercise of the right of
suffrage and the participation in election
exercises constitute a positive act of election
of Philippine citizenship. The private
respondent did more than merely exercise
his right of suffrage. He has established his
life here in the Philippines.
- For those in the peculiar situation of the
respondent who cannot be expected to have
elected citizenship as they were already
citizens, we apply the In Re Mallare rule.

- There is nothing in the records to show that he

does not embrace Philippine customs - and
values, nothing to indicate any tinge of alienness, no acts to show that this country is not
his natural homeland. The mass of voters of
Northern Samar are fully aware of Mr. Ong's
parentage. They should know him better
than any member of this Court will ever know
him
- The filing of a sworn statement or formal
declaration is a requirement for those who
still have to elect citizenship. For those
already Filipinos when the time to elect came
up, there are acts of deliberate choice which
cannot be less binding. Entering a
profession open only to Filipinos, serving in
public office where citizenship is a
qualification, voting during election time,
running for public office, and other
categorical acts of similar nature are
themselves formal manifestations of choice
for these persons.
- there is no doubt in this case about Mr. Ong's
being a Filipino when he turned twenty-one
(21).
- X: It observed that "when protestee was only
nine years of age, his father, Jose Ong
Chuan became a naturalized Filipino.
- Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act
squarely applies its benefit to him for he was
then a minor residing in this country.
Concededly, it was the law itself that had
already elected Philippine citizenship for
protestee by declaring him as such.
- respondent traces his natural born citizenship
through his mother, not through the
citizenship of his father.
- The citizenship of the father is relevant only to
determine whether or not the respondent
"chose" to be a Filipino when he came of
age.
- The domicile of a natural person is the place of
his habitual residence.
- The framers of the Constitution adhered to the
earlier definition given to the word
"residence" which regarded it as having the
same meaning as domicile.he term

"domicile" denotes a fixed permanent

residence to which when absent for business
or pleasure, one intends to return.
- once established is considered to continue and
will not be deemed lost until a new one is
established
- The absence of a person from said permanent
residence, no matter how long,
notwithstanding, it continues to be the
domicile of that person. In other words,
domicile is characterized by animus
revertendi.
- Even assuming that the private respondent
does not own any property in Samar, the
Supreme Court in the case of De los Reyes
v. Solidum (61 Phil. 893 [1935]) held that it is
not required that a person should have a
house in order to establish his residence and
domicile. It is enough that he should live in
the municipality or in a rented house or in
that of a friend or relative.
- To require the private respondent to own
property in order to be eligible to run for
Congress would be tantamount to a property
qualification. The Constitution only requires
that the candidate meet the age, citizenship,
voting and residence requirements.
Nowhere is it required by the Constitution
that the candidate should also own property
in order to be qualified to run.
- As previously stated, the private respondent
stayed in Manila for the purpose of finishing
his studies and later to practice his
profession. There was no intention to
abandon the residence in Laoang, Samar.
On the contrary, the periodical journeys
made to his home province reveal that he
always had the animus reverted

RE: APPLICATION FOR

ADMISSION TO THE
PHILIPPINE BAR VICENTE D.
CHING, APPLICANT
- On 5 April 1999, the results of the 1998 Bar
Examinations were released and Ching

was one of the successful Bar examinees.

The oath-taking of the successful Bar
examinees was scheduled on 5 May 1999.
However, because of the questionable
status of Ching's citizenship, he was not
allowed to take his oath. Pursuant to the
resolution of this Court, dated 20 April
1999, he was required to submit further
proof of his citizenship.he OSG filed its
comment on 8 July 1999, stating that
Ching, being the "legitimate child of a
Chinese father and a Filipino mother born
under the 1935 Constitution was a
Chinese citizen and continued to be so,
unless upon reaching the age of majority
he elected Philippine citizenship.In
conclusion, the OSG points out that
Ching has not formally elected Philippine
citizenship and, if ever he does, it would
already be beyond the "reasonable time"
allowed by present jurisprudence.
However, due to the peculiar
circumstances surrounding Ching's case,
the OSG recommends the relaxation of
the standing rule on the construction of
the phrase reasonable period" and the
allowance of Ching to elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with C.A. No.
625 prior to taking his oath as a member
of the Philippine Bar.
- Can a legitimate child born under the 1935
Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien
father validly elect Philippine citizenship
fourteen (14) years after he has reached the
age of majority?
- The clause "upon reaching the age of
majority" has been construed to mean a
reasonable time after reaching the age of
majority which had been interpreted by the
Secretary of Justice to be three (3) years
(VELAYO, supra at p. 51 citing Op., Sec. of
Justice No. 70, s. 1940, Feb. 27, 1940). Said
period may be extended under certain
circumstances, as when a (sic) person
concerned has always considered himself
a Filipino (ibid., citing Op. Nos. 355 and 422,
s. 1955; 3, 12, 46, 86 and 97, s. 1953). But in

Cuenco, it was held that an election done

after over seven (7) years was not made
within a reasonable time.
- It should be noted, however, that the 1973 and
1987 Constitutional provisions on the
election of Philippine citizenship should not
be understood as having a curative effect
on any irregularity in the acquisition of
citizenship for those covered by the 1935
Constitution.
- C.A. No. 625 :prescribes the procedure that
should be followed in order to made a valid
election of Philippine citizenship.
- a statement to be signed and sworn to
by the party concerned
- before any officer authorized to
administer oaths, and
- shall be filed with the nearest civil
registry.
- The said party shall accompany the
aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and
the Government of the Philippines.
- 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did
not prescribe a time period within
which the election of Philippine
citizenship should be made.
- The age of majority then commenced
upon reaching twenty-one (21) years.
- dilemma was resolved by basing
the time period on the decisions
of this Court prior to the
effectivity of the 1935
Constitution.
- in this case: ching was 14 yrs over after he had
reached the age of majority. Ching's election
was clearly beyond, by any reasonable
yardstick, the allowable period within which to
exercise the privilege.
- It should be stated, in this connection, that the
special circumstances invoked by Ching, i.e.,
his continuous and uninterrupted stay in the
Philippines and his being a certified public
accountant, a registered voter and a former
elected public official, cannot vest in him
Philippine citizenship as the law specifically
lays down the requirements for acquisition of

Philippine citizenship by election.Definitely,

the so-called special circumstances
cannot constitute what Ching erroneously
labels as informal election of citizenship.
- the exercise of the right of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises
constitute a positive act of election of
Philippine citizenship (In re: Florencio
Mallare)
- An election of Philippine citizenship
presupposes that the person electing is an
alien.
- HELD: The span Of fourteen (14) years that
lapsed from the time he reached the age of
majority until he finally expressed his
intention to elect Philippine citizenship is
clearly way beyond the contemplation of the
requirement of electing "upon reaching the
age of majority.
- Ching has offered no reason why he delayed
his election of Philippine citizenship. The
prescribed procedure in electing Philippine
citizenship is certainly not a tedious and
painstaking process. All that is required of the
elector is to execute an affidavit of election of
Philippine citizenship and thereafter, file the
same with the nearest civil registry. Ching's
unreasonable and unexplained delay in
making his election cannot be simply glossed
over.
- Philippine citizenship can never be treated
like a commodity that can be claimed
when needed and suppressed when
convenient. One who is privileged to elect
Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate
right to such citizenship. As such, he should
avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and
promptitude. Sadly, in this case, Ching slept
on his opportunity to elect Philippine
citizenship and, as a result, this golden
privilege slipped away from his grasp.

cabling vs fernandez

issue: Should children born under the 1935

Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien
father, who executed an affidavit of election of

Philippine citizenship and took their oath of

allegiance to the government upon reaching the
age of majority, but who failed to immediately file
the documents of election with the nearest civil
registry, be considered foreign nationals subject to
deportation as undocumented aliens for failure to
obtain alien certificates of registration?
whether or not the omission negates their rights to
Filipino citizenship as children of a Filipino mother,
and erase the years lived and spent as Filipinos.
facts:Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo), Felix
Cabiling Ma, Jr. (Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma
(Valeriano), Lechi Ann Ma (Lechi Ann), Arceli Ma
(Arceli), Nicolas Ma (Nicolas), and Isidro Ma
(Isidro) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a
Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a
Filipina. Records reveal that petitioners Felix, Jr.,
Balgamelo and Valeriano were all born under
aegis of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in the
years 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively.They
were all raised in the Philippines and have resided
in this country for almost sixty (60) years; they
spent their whole lives, studied and received their
primary and secondary education in the country;
they do not speak nor understand the Chinese
language, have not set foot in Taiwan, and do not
know any relative of their father; they have not
even traveled abroad; and they have already
raised their respective families in the Philippines.
During their age of minority, they secured from the
Bureau of Immigration their Alien Certificates of
Registration (ACRs). Immediately upon reaching
the age of twenty-one, they claimed Philippine
citizenship in accordance with Section 1(4), Article
IV, of the 1935 Constitution. Having taken their
oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens,
petitioners, however, failed to have the necessary
documents registered in the civil registry as
required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act
No. 625
-The instant case presents a different factual
setting. Petitioners complied with the first and
second requirements upon reaching the age of
majority. It was only the registration of the
documents of election with the civil registry that
was belatedly done.

- The statutory formalities of electing Philippine

citizenship are:
- (1) a statement of election under oath;
- (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the Philippines; and
- (3) registration of the statement of election and
of the oath with the nearest civil registry.
-HELD: We rule that under the facts peculiar to
the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
citizenship has not been lost and they should be
allowed to complete the statutory requirements for
such election.
-We are not prepared to state that the mere
exercise of suffrage, being elected public official,
continuous and uninterrupted stay in the
Philippines, and other similar acts showing
exercise of Philippine citizenship can take the
place of election of citizenship.
-What we now say is that where, as in petitioners'
case, the election of citizenship has in fact been
done and documented within the constitutional
and statutory timeframe, the registration of the
documents of election beyond the frame should
be allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts of
citizenship have publicly, consistently, and
continuously been done.
- PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION:
FOR NOTIFICATION
-it pertains to the entry made in the registry which
records solemnly and permanently the right of
ownership and other real rights.(Pascua v. Court
of Appeals)
-[i]ts purpose is to give notice thereof to all
persons (and it) operates as a notice of the deed,
contract, or instrument to others.
-registration "neither adds to its validity nor
converts an invalid instrument into a valid one
between the parties.
-It lays emphasis on the validity of an unregistered
document.
-registration is the confirmation of election as such
election
-It is not the registration of the act of election,
although a valid requirement under
Commonwealth Act No. 625, that will confer

Philippine citizenship on the petitioners.

-It is only a means of confirming the fact that
citizenship has been claimed.
-while the 1935 Constitution requires thatChildren
of Filipino mothers elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching their age of majority, upon the
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they
automatically become
Filipinos and need not elect Philippine citizenship

upon reaching the age of majority.

-Better than the relaxation of the requirement, the
1987 Constitution now classifies them as naturalborn citizens upon election of Philippine
citizenship.

YU VS DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO