Loss of Citizenship

*Yu v. Defensor-Santiago - 169 SCRA 364

FACTS: In the case at bar, herein petitioner, despite his naturalization as a Philippine citizen, applied
and renewed his Portuguese passport. Moreover, while still a citizen of the Philippines, petitioner also
declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the acts of applying for a foreign passport and declaration of foreign nationality
in commercial documents, constitute an express renunciation of one’s Philippine citizenship acquired
through naturalization.

HELD: Yes, the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioner’s
Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization. In a related jurisprudence, express renunciation
was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference
or implication.

Frivaldo v. COMELEC - 174 SCRA 245

FACTS: Private respondent questioned petitioner governor’s candidacy and election for being null and
void ab initio due to his alienage. Petitioner governor contends that his active participation in the
elections had divested him of American citizenship under the laws of the US, and restored him of his
Philippine citizenship.

ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of a certificate of candidacy by a naturalized American effectively
recovers his Philippine citizenship.

HELD: No, Philippine citizenship previously disowned is not that cheaply recovered. Citizenship once
lost may be reacquired either by naturalization or repatriation or by direct grant by law (CA 63) which
was not invoked by the petitioner.

*Frivaldo v. COMELEC – 257 SCRA 727

FACTS: Juan G. Frivaldo, who unquestionably obtained the highest number of votes in three
successive elections but who was twice declared by this Court to be disqualified to hold such office due
to his alien citizenship, now claims to have re-assumed his lost Philippine citizenship thru repatriation;

ISSUE: Was the repatriation valid and legal and reasonably cure his lack of citizenship as to qualify
him to be proclaimed and to hold the Office?

HELD: According to law, citizenship may be reacquired by 1) direct act of Congress, 2) by

naturalization or 3) by repatriation under P.D 725. The law does not specifically state a particular date
or time when the candidate must possess citizenship. An official begins to govern or to discharge his
functions only upon his proclamation and on the day the law mandates his term of office to begin. Since
Frivaldo re-assumed his citizenship on the very day the term of his office began, he was therefore
already qualified to be proclaimed, to hold office and to discharge the functions and responsibilities
thereof as of said date.

Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC - 176 SCRA 1

Facts: Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of Baguio City was questioned on his citizenship by his
rival, Lardizabal. According to Lardizabal, Labo is an Australian citizen. He was married in the
Philippines to an Australian citizen. The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to an Australian
national in 1976 did not automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship.

Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of the Philippines.

Held: The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to an Australian national in 1976 did not
automatically divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant. There is no claim or finding that he
automatically ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He became a citizen of Australia because
he was naturalized as such through a formal and positive process, simplified in his case because he was
married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of
Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does not
appear in the record, nor does the petitioner claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship.

*Labo, Jr, v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 297

Facts: For the second time around, believing that he is a Filipino citizen, Ramon Labo, Jr filed his COC
for mayor of Baguio City for the May 11, 1992 elections. On March 26, 1992, petitioner Ortega filed a
disqualification proceeding against Labo before the COMELEC on the ground that Labo is not a
Filipino citizen. Petitioner Labo claims, however, that Sec. 722 of the Omnibus Election Code “operates
as a legislatively mandated special repatriation proceeding” and that it allows his proclamation as the
winning candidate since the resolution disqualifying him was not yet final at the time the election was
held.

Petitioner also claims that he has reacquired his Filipino citizenship by citing his application for
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship filed before the Office of the Solicitor General pursuant to PD
725 and Letter of Instruction No. 2703

ISSUE: W/N Labo’s election automatically restored his Philippine citizenship.

HELD: NO. Petitioner Labo’s status has not changed in the case at bar. To reiterate, he (Labo) was
disqualified as a candidate for being an alien. His election does not automatically restore his Philippine
citizenship, the possession of which is an indispensable requirement for holding public office.

To date, however, and despite favorable recommendation by the Solicitor General, the Special
Committee on Naturalization had yet acted upon said application for repatriation. Indeed, such fact is
even admitted by petitioner. In the absence of any official action or approval by the proper authorities,
a mere application for repatriation does not, and cannot, amount to an automatic reacquisition of the
applicant’s Philippine citizenship.

Aznar v. Osmena - 185 SCRA 703

FACTS: In the case at bar, petitioner challenged respondent’s right to hold public office on the ground
that the latter was an alien. Respondent maintains that he is a son of a Filipino, was a holder of a valid
subsisting passport, a continuous resident of the Philippines and a registered voter since 1965. He was,
however, also a holder of an alien registration certificate.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is an alien.

HELD: No, because by virtue of his being a son of a Filipino, it is presumed that he was a Filipino and
remained Filipino until proof could be shown that he had renounced or lost his Philippine citizenship.
In addition, possession of an alien registration certificate unaccompanied by proof of performance of
acts whereby Philippine citizenship had been lost is not adequate proof of loss of citizenship.

84. Camacho v. Coresis, GR 134372, Aug. 22, 2002

FACTS: Dr. Daleon made special class arrangement with 3 of his students. Instead of attending class,
they were givena special program of self-study with reading materials, once a week tutorial meetings,
quizes, and term papers. Thus, administrative and criminal complaints were filed against him for gross
incompetence, insubordination and violation of RA 6770.

HELD: The SC ruled that Dr. Daleon teaching style, validated by the action of the board of Regents, is
bolstered by the constitutional guarantee on academic freedom. Academic freedom clothes Dr. Daleon
with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on the method of teaching with the most fitting of
his students (graduate student at that), subject only of the rules and policy of the University.