6.

What is the effect of becoming a dual citizen with respect to natural born status
and residence of a Filipino who became a foreigner and now takes his/her oath
again as a Filipino?
It was held that reacquisition of Philippine citizenship does not automatically result in the
re-establishment of Philippine domicile, inasmuch as a person who re-acquires Philippine
citizenship can still retain his foreign domicile even after repatriation. As has already
been previously discussed by this Court herein, Tys reacquisition of his Philippine
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his
residence/domicile. He could still retain his domicile in the USA, and he did not
necessarily regain his domicile in the Municipality of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar,
Philippines. Ty merely had the option to again establish his domicile in the Municipality
of General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said place becoming his new domicile
of choice. The length of his residence therein shall be determined from the time he made
it his domicile of choice, and it shall not retroact to the time of his birth.1
Laid down the rule that loss of Philippine citizenship likewise carries with it loss of
Philippine residency: [The] fact is that, by having been naturalized abroad, he lost his
Philippine citizenship and with it his residence in the Philippines. Until his reacquisition
of Philippine citizenship on November 10, 2000, petitioner did not reacquire his legal
residence in this country.2

7. Does a Filipino who becomes a US citizen and resides abroad considered to have
severed her ties to the Philippines for purposes of determining residence?
When a Filipino left the country to become a citizen of the United States, she renounces
not just her Filipino citizenship, but also her residency in the Philippines.
In fact, she renounced her residency even before she became a citizen of the US, i.e.,
when she obtained a green card that would allow her permanent residence there. These
are explicit acts, which leave no room for doubt on what she was leaving behind.
To prove that she is Filipino, she has to show that she has an Identification Certificate
(IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration (BI) and, if applicable, the Certificate of
Affirmation of Citizenship issued by the Department of Justice (if her IC was issued
before the implementing rules of Republic Act No. 9225, The Citizenship Retention and
Re-acquisition Act of 2003). This indicates the date she took her Oath of
Allegiance (taking of the Oath is the act that confers citizenship).
Before she took her Oath, the State, by virtue of the Philippine Immigration Act,
considered her an alien. Under Philippine law, aliens cannot be residents in the
Philippines unless they are admitted as immigrants under Section 13 of the Philippine
1
2

Japzon v. COMELEC GR. No. 180088, 19 January 2002.

Coquilla v. COMELEC GR. No. 151914, 31 July 2002.

Immigration Act. And even if she were admitted into the country as a section 13 alien, her
residency wont count as residence for election purposes because she was not allowed to
exercise political rights like the right to vote and the right to hold public office.
Residence in the context of political law is different from the usual definition of
residence. Residence in political law is the place where one wishes to return to animus
revertendi. This means that a person can actually be living for several years in Manila or
in Hawaii, but can still be considered to have residence (in the political sense) in Leyte
because she has an animus to revert there.
The Constitution and the law requires residence as a qualification for seeking and holding
elective public office, in order to give candidates the opportunity to be familiar with the
needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and all matters vital to the welfare of
their constituencies; likewise, it enables the electorate to evaluate the office seekers
qualifications and fitness for
the job they aspire for.3
It is definitively instructive that in the case of a candidate who reacquires Philippine
citizenship under R.A. 9225, Philippine residency can only be re-established at the
earliest time upon reacquisition of citizenship. Thus, it was held: Hence, petitioners
retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 did not automatically make
him regain his residence in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that after becoming a
Philippine citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan, Batanes as his
new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made it as such. The
COMELEC found that petitioner failed to present competent evidence to prove that he
was able to reestablish his residence in Uyugan within a period of one year immediately
preceding the May 13, 2013 elections. It found that it was only after reacquiring his
Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on September 13, 2012 that petitioner can
rightfully claim that he re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if such was
accompanied by physical presence thereat, coupled with an actual intent to reestablish his
domicile there. However, the period from September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was even
less than the one year residency required by law. 4

3
4

Torayno, Sr. v. Comelec, G.R. No. 137329, August 9, 2000.

Caballero v. COMELEC GR. No. 209835, 22 September 2015.