CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE

iii.) Loss and Reacquisition

The decision by the Court in the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, 174 SCRA 245 (1989)
declared private respondent Juan G. Frivaldo an alien, and was disqualified from serving as Governor of
the Province of Sorsogon. Again, his citizenship was put in issue in three separate decisions marked as
G.R. No.104654, G.R. No. 105715, and G.R. No. 105735. The said petitions were then consolidated since
they involve the same issues and parties.

GR NO. 104654, JUNE 6, 1994

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

FACTS:
A petition for certiorari is filed by the Republic of the Philippines praying for the annulment of
the decision dated February 27, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila, in SP Proc. No. 91-
58645, which re-admitted private respondent as a Filipino citizen under the Revised Naturalization Law
and nullification of the oath of allegiance taken by private respondent Juan G. Frivaldo on February 27,
1992.
The issue started when petitioner Frivaldo filed a petition for naturalization on September 20,
1991. The said petition was set for hearing by respondent Judge Hon. Rosalio De la Rosa on March 16,
1992 and directed the publication of the said order and petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper
of general circulation, for three consecutive weeks, the last publication of which should be at least six
months before the said date of hearing. The order further required the posting of a copy thereof and the
petition in a conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Manila.
Frivaldo then filed a Motion to Set Hearing Ahead of Schedule on January 14, 1992 wherein he
manifested his intention to run for public office in the May 1992 elections. In the said motion, he alleged
that the deadline for filing the certificate of candidacy was March 15, which is one day before the
scheduled hearing. He further asked that the hearing set on March 16 be cancelled and be moved to
January 24. The motion was granted in an Order dated January 24, 1992 wherein the hearing of the
petition for naturalization was moved to February 21, 1992. However, the said order was not published
nor a copy thereof was posted.
The hearing proceeded on February 21 wherein Frivaldo was only the witness and he submitted
documentary evidences in relation to his petition. Six days later, Judge De la Rosa rendered a decision,
granting Frivaldo’s petition and re-admitted the latter as a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines by
naturalization, thereby vesting upon him, all the rights and privileges of a natural born Filipino citizen. On
the same day, private respondent was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before Judge De la Rosa.
Quiterio H. Hermo filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and to Admit Motion for
Reconsideration on March 16, alleging that the naturalization proceedings of Frivaldo were tainted with
jurisdictional defects, and prayed for a new trial to conform with the requirements of the Naturalization
Law.
The Solicitor General then interposed a timely appeal directly with the Supreme Court after
receiving a copy of the Decision on March 18, 1992.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision dated February 27, 1993 of RTC Branch 28, Manila in SP Proc. No.
91-58645 which readmitted private respondent as a Filipino citizen under the Revised Naturalization Law
be annulled and his succeeding oath of allegiance taken on the same day be nullified.

RULING:
The decision rendered and the oath of allegiance taken therein are declared null and void for
failure to comply with the publication and posting requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law,
hence declaring private respondent Frivaldo NOT a citizen of the Philippines.

 Private respondent tried to reacquire his Philippine citizenship through repatriation and direct
act of Congress. However, he was later informed that repatriation proceedings were limited to
army deserters or Filipino women who had lost their citizenship by reason of their marriage to
foreigners. His request for sponsorship of a bill allowing him to reacquire his Philippine
citizenship failed to materialize, notwithstanding the endorsement of several members of the
House of Representatives in his favor.
 Private respondent, having opted to acquire Philippine citizenship through naturalization under
the Revised Naturalization Law, is duty bound to follow the procedure prescribed by the said law.
The law does not distinguish between an applicant who was formerly a Filipino citizen and one
who was never such a citizen. It does not provide a special procedure for the reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship by former Filipino citizens akin to the repatriation of a woman who had lost
her Philippine citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien.

Under Section 9 of the said law, both the petition for naturalization and the order setting it for hearing
must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of
general circulation. Compliance therewith is jurisdictional (Po Yi Bo v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 [1992]).
Moreover, the publication and posting of the petition and the order must be in its full test for the court to
acquire jurisdiction (Sy v. Republic, 55 SCRA 724 [1974]).

The petition for naturalization lacks several allegations required by Sections 2 and 6 of the Revised
Naturalization Law, particularly:
(1) that the petitioner is of good moral character;
(2) that he resided continuously in the Philippines for at least ten years;
(3) that he is able to speak and write English and any one of the principal dialects;
(4) that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition until his
admission to Philippine citizenship; and
(5) that he has filed a declaration of intention or if he is excused from said filing, the justification therefor.
The absence of such allegations is fatal to the petition (Po Yi Bi v. Republic, 205 SCRA 400 [1992]).

The petition is not supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons who vouched for the good
moral character of private respondent as required by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law. Private
respondent also failed to attach a copy of his certificate of arrival to the petition as required by Section 7
of the said law.
The proceedings of the trial court was marred by the following irregularities:
(1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled date of hearing, without a publication of
the order advancing the date of hearing, and the petition itself;
(2) the petition was heard within six months from the last publication of the petition;
(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the finality of the judgment; and
(4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the two-year waiting period.

A decision in a petition for naturalization becomes final only after 30 days from its promulgation and,
insofar as the Solicitor General is concerned, that period is counted from the date of his receipt of the
copy of the decision (Republic v. Court of First Instance of Albay, 60 SCRA 195 [1974]).

Section 1 of R.A. No. 530 provides that no decision granting citizenship in naturalization proceedings
shall be executory until after two years from its promulgation in order to be able to observe if: (1) the
applicant has left the country; (2) the applicant has dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or
profession; (3) the applicant has not been convicted of any offense or violation of government
promulgated rules; and (4) the applicant has committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the country
or contrary to government announced policies.

Even discounting the provisions of R.A. No. 530, the courts cannot implement any decision granting the
petition for naturalization before its finality.

GR NO. 105715, June 6, 1994

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS WITH INJUCTION

FACTS:
Petitioner Raul Lee filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus with injunction, with a prayer for
temporary restraining order against the COMELEC and private respondent Frivaldo, seeking to annul the
en banc Resolution of the COMELEC, which dismissed his petition docketed as SPC Case No. 92-273. The
said petition sought to annul the proclamation of private respondent as Governor-elect of the Province
of Sorsogon.
Lee was opponent of Frivaldo for the position of Governor of the Province of Sorsogon during
the May 1992 elections. Frivaldo was then proclaimed winner therefore, petitioner Lee filed a petition
with the COMELEC to annul the proclamation of private respondent as Governor-elect of the Province of
Sorsogon on the grounds: (1) that the proceedings and composition of the Provincial Board of
Canvassers were not in accordance with law; (2) that private respondent is an alien, whose grant of
Philippine citizenship is being questioned by the State in G.R. No. 104654; and (3) that private
respondent is not a duly registered voter.
Lee further prayed that the votes case in favor of private respondent be considered as stray
votes, and that he, on the basis of the remaining valid votes cast, be proclaimed winner.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the proclamation of private respondent as Governor-elect of the Province of
Sorsogon be annulled; and
 2. Whether or not the votes case in favor of private respondent be considered as stray votes, and
that the petitioner, on the basis of the remaining valid votes casts, be proclaimed winner.

RULING:
1. The COMELEC dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was filed outside the three-day
period for questioning the proceedings and composition of the Provincial Board of Canvassers
under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7166. Section 19 of RA No. 7166 provides that the period to appeal
a ruling of the board of canvassers on questions affecting its composition or proceedings is three
days.
2. In Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1 (1989), we ruled that where the candidate who obtained the
highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified to hold the office to which he was
elected, the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes is not entitled to be
declared winner (See also Geronimo v. Ramos, 136 SCRA 435 [1985]; Topacio v. Paredes, 23 Phil.
238 [1912]).

GR NO. 105735, June 6, 1994

PETITION FOR MANDAMUS WITH PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

FACTS:
The parties herein are identical with the parties in GR No. 105715. This is a petition for
mandamus filed by petitioner Lee, with a prayer for temporary restraining order, praying for COMELEC’s
immediate resolution of SPA Case No. 92-016, which is a petition for the cancellation of private
respondent’s certificate of candidacy filed on March 23, 1992 by Quiterio H. Hermo, the intervenor in
G.R. No. 104654.
The petition filed by Hermo was grounded on the allegations that (1) that private respondent is
an American citizen, and therefore ineligible to run as candidate for the position of governor of the
Province of Sorsogon; (2) that the trial court’s decision re-admitting private respondent as a Filipino
citizen was fraught with legal infirmities rendering it null and void; (3) that assuming the decision to be
valid, private respondent’s oath of allegiance, which was taken on the same day the questioned decision
was promulgated, violated Republic Act No. 530, which provides for a two-year waiting period before the
oath of allegiance can be taken by the applicant; and (4) that the hearing of the petition on February 27,
1992, was held less than four months from the date of the last publication of the order and petition. The
petition prayed for the cancellation of private respondent’s certificate of candidacy and the deletion of
his name from the list of registered voters in Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon.
Private respondent Frivaldo answered the allegations in denial and contended that (1) that
Quiterio H. Hermo, not being a candidate for the same office for which private respondent was aspiring,
had no standing to file the petition; (2) that the decision re-admitting him to Philippine citizenship was
presumed to be valid; and (3) that no case had been filed to exclude his name as a registered voter.
Raul R. Lee intervened in the petition for cancellation of private respondent’s certificate of
candidacy.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not private respondent’s certificate of candidacy and the deletion of his name from
the list of registered voters in Sta. Magdalena, Sorsogon be cancelled.

RULING:
The Court find the petition to be moot and academic.

The COMELEC concedes that private respondent has not yet reacquired his Filipino citizenship
because the decision granting him the same is not yet final and executory (Rollo, p. 63). However, it
submits that the issue of disqualification of a candidate is not among the grounds allowed in a
pre-proclamation controversy, like SPC Case No. 92-273. Moreover, the said petition was filed out of
time.

The COMELEC contends that the preparation for the elections occupied much of its time, thus its failure
to immediately resolve SPA Case No. 92-016. It argues that under Section 5 of Rule 25 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, it is excused from deciding a disqualification case within the period provided by law
for reasons beyond its control. It also assumed that the same action was subsequently abandoned by
petitioner when he filed before it a petition for quo warranto docketed as EPC No. 92-35. The quo
warranto proceedings sought private respondent’s disqualification because of his American citizenship.