Ma v Fernandez, Jr forwarded to the Ministry (now the Department) of Justice for final
GR No. 183133, 26 Jul 2010 determination and review.
The BI ruled that Yao Kong and his children are undocumented and/or
FACTS: improperly documented aliens for failure to comply with the procedure to
Balgamelo, Felix Jr, Valeriano, Lechi Ann, Arceli, Nicolas and Isidro are the prove the Philippine citizenship claim via election proceedings and for failure
children of Yao Kong (Taiwanese) and Dolores Cabiling (a Filipina). to submit the documents to support their claim. Thus, an order for their
Petitioners (Balgamelo, Felix Jr and Valeriano) were all born under 1935 deportation was issued.
Constitution. They were raised and have resided in the Philippines for almost CA dismissed the petition finding that petitioners failed to comply with the
60 years. They also studied here and cannot speak nor understand Chinese exacting standards of the law providing for the procedure and conditions for
language. They never traveled abroad. their continued stay in the Philippines either as aliens or as its nationals.
During their age of minority, they secured their Alien Certificates of MR was also denied reiterating that a person’s continued and uninterrupted
Registration (ACRs) from the Bureau of Immigration. stay in the Philippines, his being a registered voter or an elected public
When they reached the age of 21, they claimed Philippine citizenship in official cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law specifically lays
accordance with Sec.1(4), Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution. 1 They executed down the requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by election.
their affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took their oath of o It is required to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine
allegiance. However, they failed to register the necessary documents with citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil
the civil registry as required under Sec.1 of Commonwealth Act 625. registry.
o Balgamelo and Felix Jr only did the registration after 30 years while o One who is privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an
Valeriano did not comply. inchoate right to such citizenship.
Records show that petitioners exercise their right of suffrage.
Subsequently, the Bureau of Immigration (BI) received a complaint-affidavit ISSUE: WON petitioners born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an
from Mr. Catral alleging that Yao Kong and his 7 children are undesirable alien father, who executed an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took
and overstaying aliens. their oath of allegiance to the government upon reaching the age of majority, but
The Legal Dept of the Bureau charged them for violation of the Philippine failed to immediately file the documents of election with the nearest civil registry, be
Immigration Act of 1940 (Commonwealth Act No. 613). considered foreign nationals subject to deportation as undocumented aliens for failure
The Board of Commissioners of BI ruled that Commonwealth Act No. 613 to obtain alien certificates of registration. NO
was violated. The Board ruled that since they elected Philippine citizenship
after the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 625, which was approved on RULING:
7 June 1941, they were governed by the following rules and regulations: Under the 1935 Constitution in relation to Commonwealth Act No. 625, the statutory
1) Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, providing that the election of formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of election under
Philippine citizenship embodied in a statement sworn before any oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines;
officer authorized to administer oaths and the oath of allegiance and (3) registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil
shall be filed with the nearest civil registry; and Commission of registry.
Immigration and Deportation (CID, now BI Circular dated 12 April
1954, detailing the procedural requirements in the registration of the In Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, the court
election of Philippine citizenship. determined the meaning of the period of election described by phrase “upon reaching
2) Memorandum Order dated 18 August 1956 of the CID, requiring the the age of majority.” [T]he 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a
filing of a petition for the cancellation of their alien certificate of time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be made. The
registration with the CID, in view of their election of Philippine 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be made “upon reaching the age
citizenship; of majority.” The age of majority then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21)
3) DOJ Opinion No. 182, 19 August 1982; and DOJ Guidelines, 27 years. In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the validity of
March 1985, requiring that the records of the proceedings be election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by basing the time period
on the decisions of this Court prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these
1
“(t)hose whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
decisions, the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on
elect Philippine citizenship” are citizens of the Philippines the pronouncements of the Department of State of the United States Government to
the effect that the election should be made within a reasonable time after attaining the NOTES:
age of majority. The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the While the 1935 Constitution requires that children of Filipino mothers elect
elections should be made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority. Philippine citizenship upon reaching their age of majority, upon the effectivity
However, it was held in Cue[n]co vs. SOJ, that the three (3) year period is not an of the 1973 Constitution, they automatically become Filipinos and need not
inflexible rule. elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
But in the 1987 Constitution, they are now classified as national-born citizens
This case presents a different factual setting. Petitioners complied with the first and upon election of Philippine citizenship.
second requirements upon reaching the age of majority. It was only the registration of
the documents of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done. We rule that
under the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
citizenship has not been lost and they should be allowed to complete the
statutory requirements for such election.
We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public
official, continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts
showing exercise of Philippine citizenship can take the place of election of citizenship.
What we now say is that where, as in petitioners’ case, the election of citizenship has
in fact been done and documented within the constitutional and statutory timeframe,
the registration of the documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in
the meanwhile positive acts of citizenship have publicly, consistently,
and continuously been done. The actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over
half a century by the herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine public which
is equivalent to formal registration of the election of Philippine citizenship.
Registration, then, is the confirmation of the existence of a fact. In the instant case,
registration is the confirmation of election as such election. It is not the registration of
the act of election, although a valid requirement under Commonwealth Act No. 625,
that will confer Philippine citizenship on the petitioners. It is only a means of
confirming the fact that citizenship has been claimed.
Having a Filipino mother is permanent. It is the basis of the right of the petitioners to
elect Philippine citizenship. Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and
substance. The failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the
election and resultingly negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother.
The lacking requirements may still be complied with subject to the imposition of
appropriate administrative penalties, if any. The documents they submitted supporting
their allegations that they have already registered with the civil registry, although
belatedly, should be examined for validation purposes by the appropriate agency, in
this case, the Bureau of Immigration. Other requirements embodied in the
administrative orders and other issuances of the Bureau of Immigration and the
Department of Justice shall be complied with within a reasonable time.
THUS, Petitioners are given ninety (90) days from notice within which to COMPLY
with the requirements of the BI.
