AFTER April 11, 1899 and  AFTER NOVEMBER 15, 1935  AFTER JANUARY 17, 1973 and 

AFTER FEBRUARY 2, 1987 

BEFORE NOVEMBER 15, 1935  and before JANUARY 17, 1973  before FEBRUARY 2, 1987 
TREATY OF PARISE, PHILIPPINE BILL OF 1902 AND 
1935 CONSTITUTION  1973 CONSTITUTION  1987 CONSTITUTION 
JONES ACT OF 1916 

* Parents are citizens. (Filipino parentage)   CITIZENS UNDER 1935 CONSTITUTION = TFC/TBN ***  CITIZENS UNDER 1973 CONSTITUTION = TFEN ***  CITIZENS UNDER 1987 CONSTITUTION = TFBN *** 
  (1) T - TIME OF ADOPTION  (1) T - TIME OF ADOPTION  (1) T - TIME OF ADOPTION 
  (3)  F  -  FATHERS  ARE  CITIZENS  (ALSO  LAWFUL  (2) F - FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS  (2) F - FATHERS OR MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS 
WEDLOCK RULE FOR ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN)  (3)  E  -  ELECT  PHILIPPINE  CITIZENSHIP  PURSUANT  TO  (3)  B  -  BORN  BEFORE  JANUARY 17, 1973 OF FILIPINO MOTHERS, WHO 
(2)  C  -  CARAM  RULE  =  foreign  parents  who  had  THE PROVISIONS OF 1935 CONSTITUTION.  ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY 
been  elected  to  public  office  “before  the  (4) N - NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW  (4) N - NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW 
Natural-born  citizens  are  those  who are citizens of the Philippines from 
adoption of this constitution”  A  female  citizen  of  the  Philippines  who  marries  an  alien  retains  her 
birth  without  having  to  perform  any  act  to  acquire  or  perfect  their 
Philippine  citizenship,  unless  by  her  act  or  omission  she  is  deemed, 
(4)  B  -  Those  whose  mothers  are  citizens  of  the  under the law, to have renounced her citizenship.  Philippine  citizenship.  Those  who  elect  Philippine  citizenship  in 
Philippines  and,  upon  reaching  the  age  of    accordance  with  paragraph  (3),  Section  1  hereof  shall  be  deemed 
majority, elect Philippine citizenship  A  natural-born  citizen  is  one  who  is  a  citizen  of  the  Philippines  from  natural-born citizens. 
birth  without  having  to  perform  any  act  to  acquire  or  perfect  his   
(5) N - NATURALIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW    Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, 
Philippine citizenship. 
unless  by  their  act  or  omission  they  are  deemed,  under  the  law  to 
have renounced it. 

*  Under  the  Philippine  Bill  of  1902  as  amended  NATURALIZED BY:     NATURALIZED BY:  
1912,  the  SC  opined:  The  petitioner,  born  of  alien  [JUDICIAL  NATURALIZATION  UNDER  CA  473  [ADMINISTRATIVE  NATURALIZATION  UNDER RA 9139 
parentage,  is not a citizen of the Philippine Islands.  "REVISED NATURALIZATION LAW" of 1939]  "THE  ADMINISTRATIVE  NATURALIZATION  LAW  OF 
[Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor]  2000"] 

- EXCEPTION: Spanish subjects, requisites:   REACQUIRED CITIZENSHIP BY:     REACQUIRED CITIZENSHIP BY:  
- natives  of  the Peninsula, residing     
in the territory  CA 63 OF 1936  RA 9225  
- Who  failed  to  make  a  “AN  ACT  PROVIDING  FOR  THE  WAYS  IN  WHICH  "CITIZENSHIP  RETENTION  AND  RE-ACQUISITION  ACT 
declaration  of  their  decision  to  PHILIPPINE  CITIZENSHIP  MAY  BE  LOST  OR  OF 2003." [AMENDING CA 63] 
pledge  their  allegiance  to spain  REACQUIRED” 
between  April  11,  1899  to 
October, 1899 (In Re Bosque)  In RE Baldello (1939)      
- In  default  of  which  declaration  Our opinion finds corroboration in the rule
they  shall  be  held  to  have  indicated in Roa vs. Collector of Customs
renounced  it  and  to  have  (1912), which is now a legal provision
adopted  the  nationality  of  the  embodied in paragraph 7, article 1, of
territory  in  which  they  may  Commonwealth Act No. 63, to the effect that a
reside.  Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by
- EXCEPT:  If  an  absentee  marrying a foreigner belonging to a nation the
and  have  not  resided  laws of which do not allow her to acquire
in  the  Philippines  the husband's nationality. 
between  the  said 
period. (In Re Bosque)  
1912 to 1957     

Citizens by judicial decisions applying the jus soli principle from ROA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS(1912) 
to TIO TIAM v REPUBLIC (1957) because of the doctrine res adjudicata.