Page 1 of 3

Republic of the Philippines Republic Act (RA) No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship
SUPREME COURT Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. Thereafter, he renounced his
Manila Canadian citizenship and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before
a Notary Public in Batanes on October 1, 2012 to conform with Section
EN BANC 5(2) of RA No. 9225. He claimed that he did not lose his domicile of
origin in Uyugan, Batanes despite becoming a Canadian citizen as he
G.R. No. 209835, September 22, 2015 merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter future for him
and his family; and that he went back to Uyugan during his vacation
ROGELIO BATIN CABALLERO, Petitioner, while working in Nigeria, California, and finally in Canada.
v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JONATHAN ENRIQUE V. COMELEC First Division Ruling
NANUD, JR., Respondents.
On May 3, 2013, the COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution
PERALTA, J.: finding that petitioner made a material misrepresentation in his COC
when he declared that he is a resident of Barangay Imnajbu, Uyugan,
FACTS Batanes within one year prior to the election. The decretal portion of
the resolution reads:
Petitioner Rogelio Batin Caballero and private respondent Jonathan
Enrique V. Nanud, Jr. were both candidates for the mayoralty position WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Commission RESOLVED, as
of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, 2013 it hereby RESOLVES to GRANT the instant Petition. The Certificate of
elections. Private respondent filed a Petition to deny due course to or Candidacy of respondent Caballero is hereby CANCELLED.
cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the
latter made a false representation when he declared in his COC that he Elections were subsequently held on May 13, 2013 and the election
was eligible to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes despite being a returns showed that petitioner won over private respondent. Private
Canadian citizen and a nonresident thereof. respondent filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to Defer Proclamation.

Petitioner did not file an Answer but filed a Memorandum On May 14, 2013, petitioner was proclaimed Mayor of Uyugan,
controverting private respondent's substantial allegations in his Batanes.
petition.
On May 16, 2013, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration with
Petitioner argued that prior to the filing of his COC on October 3, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc assailing the May 3, 2013 Resolution issued by
he took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before the COMELEC's First Division canceling his COC.
the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada on September 13,
2012 and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen pursuant to
 Page 2 of 3

COMELEC En Banc RULING residence either in the Philippines or in the foreign country of which
he is also a citizen.
On November 6, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc issued its assailed
Resolution denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Republic Act No. 7160, which is known as the Local Government Code of
1991, provides, among others, for the qualifications of an elective local
Petitioner Contends official. Section 39 thereof states:

Petitioner next claims that he did not abandon his Philippine domicile. SEC. 39. Qualifications. - (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of
He argues that he was born and baptized in Uyugan, Batanes; studied the Philippines; a registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or
and had worked therein for a couple of years, and had paid his province or, in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan,
community tax certificate; and, that he was a registered voter and had sangguniang panlungsod, or sanggunian bayan, the district where he
exercised his right of suffrage and even built his house therein. He also intends to be elected; a resident therein for at least one (1) year
contends that he usually comes back to Uyugan, Batanes during his immediately preceding the day of the election; and able to read and
vacations from work abroad, thus, his domicile had not been lost. write Filipino or any other local language or dialect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the reacquisition of Philippine citizenship Clearly, the Local Government Code requires that the candidate must
carries the reacquisition of the domicile of origin. be a resident of the place where he seeks to be elected at least one year
immediately preceding the election day. Respondent filed the petition
SC RULING. NO for cancellation of petitioner's COC on the ground that the latter made
material misrepresentation when he declared therein that he is a
RA No. 9225, which is known as the Citizenship Retention and resident of Uyugan, Batanes for at least one year immediately
Reacquisition Act of 2003, declares that natural-born citizens of the preceeding the day of elections.
Philippines, who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country, can re-acquire or The term "residence" is to be understood not in its common acceptation
retain his Philippine citizenship under the conditions of the law. The as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation," but rather to "domicile" or
law does not provide for residency requirement for the reacquisition or legal residence, that is, "the place where a party actually or
retention of Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he
such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship on the current may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and
residence of the concerned natural-born Filipino. remain (animus manendi)." A domicile of origin is acquired by every
person at birth. It is usually the place where the child's parents reside
RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of residence. This is only and continues until the same is abandoned by acquisition of new
logical and consistent with the general intent of the law to allow for domicile (domicile of choice). It consists not only in the intention to
dual citizenship. Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled
time, both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may establish with conduct indicative of such intention.
 Page 3 of 3

Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and raised in Uyugan, Batanes. He must still prove that after becoming a Philippine
Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he had his domicile of citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished Uyugan, Batanes
origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However, he later worked in Canada and as his new domicile of choice which is reckoned from the time he made
became a Canadian citizen. In Coquilla v. COMELEC we ruled that it as such.
naturalization in a foreign country may result in an abandonment of
domicile in the Philippines. This holds true in petitioner's case as The COMELEC found that petitioner failed to present competent
permanent resident status in Canada is required for the acquisition of evidence to prove that he was able to reestablish his residence in
Canadian citizenship. Hence, petitioner had effectively abandoned his Uyugan within a period of one year immediately preceding the May
domicile in the Philippines and transferred his domicile of choice in 13, 2013 elections. It found that it was only after reacquiring his
Canada. His frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on September 13, 2012
from work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of such that petitioner can rightfully claim that he re-established his domicile
abandonment. in Uyugan, Batanes, if such was accompanied by physical presence
thereat, coupled with an actual intent to reestablish his domicile there.
The next question is what is the effect of petitioner's retention of his However, the period from September 13, 2012 to May 12, 2013 was
Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 on his residence or domicile? even less than the one year residency required by law.

In Japzon v. COMELEC, wherein respondent Ty reacquired his WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The
Philippine citizenship under RA No. 9225 and run for Mayor of Resolution dated May 3, 2013 of the COMELEC First Division and the
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar and whose residency in the said Resolution dated November 6, 2013 of the COMELEC En Banc and are
place was put in issue, we had the occasion to state, thus: hereby AFFIRMED.

[Petitioner's] reacquisition of his Philippine citizenship under

Republic Act No. 9225 had no automatic impact or effect on his
residence/domicile. He could still retain his domicile in the USA, and
he did not necessarily regain his domicile in the Municipality of
General Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines. Ty merely had the
option to again establish his domicile in the Municipality of General
Macarthur, Eastern Samar, Philippines, said place becoming his new
domicile of choice. The length of his residence therein shall be
determined from the time he made it his domicile of choice, and it
shall not retroact to the time of his birth.31chanrobleslaw

Hence, petitioner's retention of his Philippine citizenship under RA

No. 9225 did not automatically make him regain his residence in