CITIZENS DEFINED

PH BILL 1902 Section 4. That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside
therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-
nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto,
shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the
protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to
the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight.
Section 35. That proof of citizenship under the clauses of this Act relating to mineral lands may
consist in the case of an individual, of his own affidavit thereof; in the case of an association of
persons unincorporated, of the affidavit of their authorised agent made on his own knowledge or
upon information and belief, and in case of a corporation organised under the laws of the United
States, or of any State or Territory thereof, or of the Philippine Islands, by the filing of a certified
copy of their charter or certificate of incorporation.

1935 Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution.

(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.

(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
elect Philippine citizenship.

(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

1973 Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

3. Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of
nineteen hundred and thirty-five.

4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Section 2. A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien retains her Philippine
citizenship, unless by her act or omission she is deemed, under the law, to have renounced her
citizenship.

Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Section 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
EDISON SO, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts:

He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has lived in No. 528
Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee, he derives an average annual
income of around P100,000.00 with free board and lodging and other benefits; he is single, able
to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; he is exempt from the filing of Declaration of
Intention to become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of Commonwealth Act
(C.A.) No. 473.

On March 22, 2002, the RTC issued an Order8 setting the petition for hearing at 8:30 a.m. of
December 12 and 17, 2002 during which all persons concerned were enjoined to show cause, if
any, why the petition should not be granted. The entire petition and its annexes, including the
order, were ordered published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette
and also in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Manila. The RTC likewise ordered
that copies of the petition and notice be posted in public and conspicuous places in the Manila
City Hall Building.9

During the hearing, petitioner presented Atty. Adasa, Jr. who testified that he came to know
petitioner in 1991 as the legal consultant and adviser of the So family’s business. He would
usually attend parties and other social functions hosted by petitioner’s family. He knew petitioner
to be obedient, hardworking, and possessed of good moral character, including all the
qualifications mandated by law.

Another witness for petitioner, Mark Salcedo, testified that he has known petitioner for ten (10)
years; they first met at a birthday party in 1991. He and petitioner were classmates at the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) where they took up Pharmacy. Petitioner was a member of
some school organizations and mingled well with friends.

The RTC granted the petition on June 4, 2003.

Respondent Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
appealed the decision to the CA on the following grounds:

Issue:

W/N Edison So did meet all the qualification needed to be a naturalized Filipino citizen.

Ruling:

The petition is denied for lack of merit.

Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation
by clothing him or her with the privileges of a citizen.44 Under current and existing laws, there
are three ways by which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization: (a) administrative
naturalization pursuant to R.A. No. 9139; (b) judicial naturalization pursuant to C.A. No. 473, as
amended; and (c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.

First. C.A. No. 473 and R.A. No. 9139 are separate and distinct laws – the former covers all
aliens regardless of class while the latter covers native-born aliens who lived here in the
Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country and all along thought that they were
Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to the customs
and traditions.52 To reiterate, the intention of the legislature in enacting R.A. No. 9139 was to
make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less tedious, less technical and more
encouraging which is administrative rather than judicial in nature. Thus, although the legislature
believes that there is a need to liberalize the naturalization law of the Philippines, there is
nothing from which it can be inferred that C.A. No. 473 was intended to be amended or repealed
by R.A. No. 9139. What the legislature had in mind was merely to prescribe another mode of
acquiring Philippine citizenship which may be availed of by native born aliens. The only
implication is that, a native born alien has the choice to apply for judicial or administrative
naturalization, subject to the prescribed qualifications and disqualifications.

In naturalization proceedings, it is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good
moral character but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible
persons.56 Within the purview of the naturalization law, a "credible person" is not only an
individual who has not been previously convicted of a crime; who is not a police character and
has no police record; who has not perjured in the past; or whose affidavit or testimony is not
incredible. What must be credible is not the declaration made but the person making it. This
implies that such person must have a good standing in the community; that he is known to be
honest and upright; that he is reputed to be trustworthy and reliable; and that his word may be
taken on its face value, as a good warranty of the applicant’s worthiness.

We do not agree with petitioner’s argument that respondent is precluded from questioning the
RTC decision because of its failure to oppose the petition. A naturalization proceeding is not a
judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not constitute res
judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the
applicant obtained it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence
even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of naturalization upon grounds or conditions
arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate.59 If the government can challenge a final
grant of citizenship, with more reason can it appeal the decision of the RTC within the
reglementary period despite its failure to oppose the petition before the lower court.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

REPUBLIC v. GO PEI HUNG, GR No. 212785, 2018-04-04

Facts:
Section 2. Qualifications. - Subject to Section 4 of this Act, any person having the following
qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:First. He must be not
less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing of the petition;Second. He must
have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than ten years;Third. He must
be of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution,
and must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation wife the constituted government as well
as with the community in which he is living.Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines
worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation:Fifth. He must be able to speak and write
English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; andSixth. He must have
enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public schools or private schools
recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where the Philippine history,
government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the
entire period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his
petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.

It appeared that there is no impediment to the Court's nod of approval to petitioner's

Under Republic Act 530, this decision granting the application for naturalization shall not
become final and executory until after two (2) years from the promulgation of the decision and
after another hearing is conducted to determine whether or not the applicant has complied with
the requirements of Section 1 of said law with the attendance of the Solicitor General or his
authorized representative x x x, and so finds [that] during the intervening time the applicant:(1)
[has] not left the Philippines;(2) has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or
profession;(3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated
rate; and(4) or committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any
Government announced policies.Set hearing on August 30, 2012 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.

Petitioner interposed an appeal with the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 97542.
On February 28, 2014, the CA issued the assailed Decision, pronouncing thus:

Petitioner-appellee does not deny that he failed to file with the OSG the required declaration of
intention, but he claims that he is exempted from filing the same pursuant to Section 6 of CA
473, as amended, which provides that:'Sec. 6. Persons exempt from requirement to wake a
declaration of intention. - Persons born in the Philippines and have received their primary and
secondary education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited
to any race or nationality, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a
period of thirty years or more before filing their application, may be naturalized without having to
make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act. To such
requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and
secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by
the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The same shall be understood to be
applicable with respect to the widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his
intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies before he is actually naturalized.'... no
error

Respondent came to the country sometime in 1973; thus, he should have attached a Certificate
of Arrival to his Petition for Naturalization. This is mandatory as respondent must prove that he
entered the country legally and not by unlawful means or any other manner that is not
sanctioned by law. Because if he entered the country illegally, this would render his stay in the
country unwarranted from the start, and no number of years' stay here will validate his unlawful
entry. The spring cannot rise higher than its source, so to speak. Strict compliance with all
statutory requirements is necessary

Issues:

The petition for naturalization should not [have been] granted because: i) respondent did not file
his declaration of intention with the OSG; ii) respondent did not state the details of his arrival in
the Philippines in his petition and the certificate of arrival was not attached to the petition.; iii)
respondent is not engaged in a lucrative profession, trade or occupation; and iv) respondent
failed to present during hearing qualified character witnesses as required under CA No. 473.[8]
(Emphasis in the original)

Ruling: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition, for Naturalization filed by petitioner
Go Pei Hung is hereby GRANTED.

The Court is not persuaded. Again, the Court is not persuaded.

We have reviewed the testimonies of these, witnesses and we find no error on the part of the
trial court when it found these witnesses credible.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision dated July 21, 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 16, in Naturalization Case No. 07-118391 is AFFIRMED.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The February 28, 2014 Decision and June 5, 2014
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 97542 are REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE. The respondent's Petition for Naturalization in Naturalization Case No. 07-118391
before the Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 16 is DISMISSED.

Mercado v. Manzano G.R. No. 135083 May 26, 1999

Facts:

Petitioners filed for respondent’s disqualification for election alleging that respondent is a dual
citizen, and under the Local Government Code, dual citizens cannot run for public office.

Respondent is a son of both Filipinos but was born in the U.S which follows the principle of jus
soli, hence, considered an American citizen as well.
COMELEC allowed Manzano to run because he was considered natural-born because of the
vrtue that he is a son of both Filipino citizens but petitioners assail this.

Issue: Is respondent Manzano a dual citizen and cannot run for public office?

Ruling: The Court first defined dual citizenship and compared it to dual allegiance.

Dual citizenship arises when a person whose parents are citizens of a state that follows jus
saguinis and was born in a state that follows jus soli, hence, resulting to a concurrent application
of different two laws or more.

On the other hand, dual allegiance is a situation where a person simultaneously owes loyalty to
two or more states.

In this case, Respondent, though dual citizen, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy
tantamount to his election of Phil. citizenship – meaning he forswears allegiance to the other
country and thereby terminating their status as dual.

The Court stressed that participating in the election is an express renunciation of American
citizenship.

CASAN MACQUILING v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

FACTS:

This Resolution resolves the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent on May 10, 2013
and the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed on May 20, 2013.

We are not unaware that the term of office of the local officials elected in the May 2010 elections
has already ended on June 30, 2010. Arnado, therefore, has successfully finished his term of
office. While the relief sought can no longer be granted, ruling on the motion for reconsideration
is important as it will either affirm the validity of Arnados election or affirm that Arnado never
qualified to run for public office.

Respondent failed to advance any argument to support his plea for the reversal of this Courts
Decision dated April 16, 2013. Instead, he presented his accomplishments as the Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and reiterated that he has taken the Oath of Allegiance not only
twice but six times. It must be stressed, however, that the relevant question is the efficacy of his
renunciation of his foreign citizenship and not the taking of the Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines. Neither do his accomplishments as mayor affect the question before
this Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen can run for a local elective position?

RULING: Court ruled that dual citizens are ineligible for public office
It must be stressed that what is at stake here is the principle that only those who are exclusively
Filipinos are qualified to run for public office. If we allow dual citizens who wish to run for public
office to renounce their foreign citizenship and afterwards continue using their foreign passports,
we are creating a special privilege for these dual citizens, thereby effectively junking the
prohibition in Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code.

DAVID vs. AGBAY

Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon

Private respondent Editha Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a
Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification
of public documents under Article 172 of the RPC against the petitioner.

Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of Republic Act
No. 9225.

The CENRO rejected petitioner’s MLA, ruling that petitioner’s subsequent re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio.

An information for Falsification of Public Document was filed before the MTC and a warrant of
arrest was issued against the petitioner.

Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have been
committed before he had re- acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that
petitioner was at that time still a Canadian citizen.

Petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. The petition was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for falsification for representing himself as a Filipino in
his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under
the provisions of R.A. 9225.

RULING:

Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A.
9225, he belongs to the first category of natural- born Filipinos under the first paragraph of
Section 3 who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law
allows dual citizenship, he was able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the
required oath of allegiance.
For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is not
necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such
reacquisition because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost
Philippine citizenship, in contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign
citizens after R.A. 9225 came into force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that
considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship,
should be read together with Section 3, the second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy
governs all cases after the new law’s effectivity.

Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino
citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
citizen.

Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen,
naturalization in a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses
his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six
months later, the falsification was already a consummated act, the said law having no
retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not
err in finding probable cause for falsification of public document under Article 172, paragraph 1.

REPUBLIC VS .SAGUN

FACTS:

Respondent is the legitimate child of father, aChinese national, and mother, a Filipino citizen.
She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio Cityand did not elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority. At the age of 33, she executed an Oath of Allegianceto the
Republic of the Philippines. The document was notarized but was not recorded and registered
with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City. In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but
was denied due to the citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on her birth
certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship. Consequently, she sought a judicial
declaration of her election of Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of
Baguio City be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate.

ISSUE/s:

1.) Whether respondent’s petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship is

2.) Whether the respondent has effectively elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with
the procedure prescribed by law.

RULING:

1.) Yes. But it should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule which
authorizes the direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before
the courts. Respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer
upon her Philippine citizenship when clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship.

2.) No. Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the
procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent
cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitutes
a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays down the
requirements for acquisition of citizenship by election.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. Having failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondent’s
petition before the trial court must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for judicial declaration of election of Philippine
citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Republic of the Philippines v Chule Y Lim

Facts:

The respondent, Chule Y. Lim, is an illegitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipina
mother, who never got married due to a prior subsisting marriage of her father. The respondent
petitioned that there were few mistakes as to her citizenship and identity, to wit:

1. That her surname “Yu” was misspelled as “Yo”. She has been using “Yu” in all of her school
records and in her marriage certificate.

2. That her father’s name in her birth record was written as “Yo Diu To (Co Tian)” when it should
have been “Yu Dio To (Co Tian).”

3. That her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino considering
that her father and mother got married.

4. That she was entered as a legitimate child on her birth certificate when in fact, it should have
been illegitimate. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals granted the respondent’s petition.

Issue:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the correction of the citizenship of respondent
Chule Y. Lim from “Chinese” to “Filipino” despite the fact that respondent never demonstrated
any compliance with the legal requirements for election of citizenship.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing respondent to continue using her father’s
surname despite its finding that respondent is an illegitimate child.

Held:
1. No. The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of
electing Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority as mandated in Article IV,
Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution and Section 1 of the Commonwealth Act No. 625. The
Supreme Court held that the two above provisions only apply to legitimate children. These do
not apply in the case of the respondent who was an illegitimate child considering that her
parents never got married. By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent
automatically became a Filipino upon birth, and as such, there was no more need for her to
validly elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Also, she registered as a
voter inside the country when she reached 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage
and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship.

2. No. The Republic’s submission was misleading. The Court of Appeals did not allow
respondent to use her father’s surname. What it did allow was the correction of her father’s
misspelled surname which she has been using ever since she can remember. The court held
that prohibiting the respondent to use her father’s surname would only sow confusion. Also,
Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142 which regulates the use of aliases as well as the
jurisprudence state that it is allowed for a person to use a name “by which he has been known
since childhood”. Even legitimate children cannot enjoin the illegitimate children of their father
from using his surname. While judicial authority is required for a chance of name or surname,
there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already
been using since childhood.

The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family
relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in
great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is
involved or to the community in general. In this case, the Republic has not shown that the Yu
family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the object of future mischief.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition brought by the Republic is DENIED.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED

On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was
held. Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the second legislative
district of Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private
respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of
the second district of Northern Samar.

The petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent alleging that Jose Ong, Jr.
is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines and not a resident of the second district of
Northern Samar.

The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) declared respondent Ong is a natural
born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent is a natural born Filipino and a resident of Laoang, Northern
Samar..

HELD:

1. The Court affirmed the decision of HRET that respondent is a natural born Filipino and a
resident of Laoang, Northern Samar. The 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. At
that time and up to the present, both mother and father were Filipinos. Respondent Ong could
not have elected any other citizenship unless he first formally renounced Philippine citizenship
in favor of a foreign nationality. Unlike other persons faced with a problem of election, there was
no foreign nationality of his father which he could possibly have chosen.

POE- LLAMANZARES VS. COMELEC

FACTS:

In her COC for Presidency on the May 2016 elections, Grace Poe declared that she is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines and that her residence up to day before May 9, 2016 would be 10
years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005.

Grace Poe was born in 1968., found as newborn infant in Jaro,Iloilo and was legally adopted by
RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (FPJ) and JESUS SONORA POE (SUSAN ROCES) in 1974.
She immigrated to the US in 1991 after her marriage to Theodore Llamanzares who was then
based at the US. Grace Poe then became a naturalized American citizen in 2001.

On December 2004, he returned to the Philippines due to his father’s deteriorating medical
condition, who then eventually demice on February 3,2005. She then quitted her job in the US
to be with her grieving mother and finally went home for good to the Philippines on MAY 24,
2005.

On JULY 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino
citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained a new Philippine Passport.

In 2010, before assuming her post as appointes Chairperson of the MTRCB , she renounced
her American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirements as to Reacquistion of Filipino
Citizenship. From then on, she stopped using her American passport.

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on the ground
particularly among others, that she cannot be considered a natural born Filipino citizen since
she was a FOUNDLING and that her bioligical parents cannot be proved as Filipinos. The
Comelec en banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she is in want of citizenship and
residence requirements and that she committed misrepresentation in her COC.
On CERTIORARI, the SUPREME COURT, reversed the ruling and held a vote of 9-6 that POE
is qualified as candidate for Presidency.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a natural- born Filipino citizen

(2) Whether or not Poe satisfies the 10-year residency requirement.

HELD:

YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born Filipino Citizen. For that, she satisfied the
constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos may run for Presidency.

(1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being shown in her physical
features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact that she was found as an infant in
Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality wherein there is 99% probability that residents there are Filipinos,
consequently providing 99% chance that Poe’s bilogical parents are Filipinos. Said probability
and circumstancial evidence are admissible under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules on Evidence.

(2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a class, natural born- citizens as based on
the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention, wherein though its enumeration is silent
as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language either to definitely exclude the foundlings to be
natural born citizens.

(3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born citizenship as to the
country where they are being found, as covered and supported by the UN Convention Law.

As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency because she satisfied the
requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to remain permanently) coupled with ANIMUS NON
REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to US) in acquiring a new domicile in the Philippines.
Starting May 24,2005, upon returning to the Philippines, Grace Poe presented overwhelming
evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon permanently her domicile in the US, coupled
with her eventual application to reacquire Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225. Hence, her
candidacy for Presidency was granted by the SC.