IVEN B. PACATANG –Digested Cases for Finals

AZNAR V. COMELEC

G.R. No. 83820 May 25, 1990

FACTS:

Respondent Emilio “Lito” Osmena filed his certificate of candidacy before the COMELEC as the Governor of Cebu Province. Aznar, herein petitioner, as the representative of the Cebu PDP- Provincial council and as the incumbent Chairman of such, filed a petition against the respondent before the Comelec  contending that he should be disqualified because he is not  a Filipino citizen, instead an American citizen. Petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation showing a Certificate issued by the Immigration and Deportation Commissioner Miriam Defensor Santiago that the respondent as an American Citizen is a holder of Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence. The Comelec en banc ordered the Board of Canvassers to continue canvassing but to suspend the proclamation upon the filing the motion of herein respondent for the Temporary Restraining Order to the Cebu Provincial Board of Canvassers from tabulation and proclamation of the respondent until the resolution of said petition.

Private respondent alleged that he is a Filipino Citizen that he is the legitimate son of Dr. Emilio D. Osmena, the latter being the son of the late President Sergio Osmena.He also claimed that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and he has not gone out of the country for more than six months. Furthermore, he contended that he is a registered voter of the Philippines since 1965.

COMELEC (FirstDivision) directed the Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winning candidates. Having obtained the highest number of votes, private respondent was proclaimed the Provincial Governor of Cebu.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent Emilio “ Lito” Osmena has lost his Filipino Citizenship and thus be disqualified as a candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu Province.

HELD:

NO. The respondent did not lose his Filipino Citizenship and thereby qualified as a candidate for the Provincial Governor of Cebu Province. The petitioner failed to present direct proof that private respondent had lost his Filipino Citizenship by any of the modes provided under C.A. No. 63 namely: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country; (2) By express renunciation of Citizenship; and (3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. Thus, it is clear that private respondent Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the three mentioned herein above or by any other mode of losing Philippine Citizenship.

ANGAT V. REPUBLIC     

G.R. No. 132244 September 14, 1999

FACTS:

Petitioner Angat is a natural born citizen who lost his Philippine Citizenship through naturalization in the United States of America. He then filed a petition dated March1, 1996 before the RTC of Marikina to regain his status as a Filipino Citizen. He was then repatriated upon the approval of the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction in deciding over repatriation cases.

HELD:

NO. RTC has no jurisdiction over repatriation cases, thus the court’s order was thereby not binding. Instead, the Special Committee on Naturalization should handle and decide over these cases as the said committee was revived on June 8, 1995. In a prospective effect, the case of Angat is under the jurisdiction of said committee since the petition was filed on March 1, 1996 and pursuant to the LOI No, 270 PD 725 constituted by the committee providing repatriation of Filipino women who had lost their Philippine Citizenship and of natural born Filipino who had lost their Philippine citizenship by political and economic necessity.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SAYO

G.R. NO. 61565, AUGUST 20, 1990

FACTS:

Private respondent Ramon soughtin a petition filed in the then Court of First Instance for corrections of entries in the Civil Registry relating to his citizenship and of his legitimate parents. The Court issued a notice of hearing for a hearing on 15 April 1982 after the copies were furnished to the office of the Provincial Fiscal, the office of the Solicitor General and the Local Civil Registrar. The notice of hearing was also posted in the bulletin board and was published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks.

 A decision was rendered by the court ordering the Local civil Registry to make some corrections in relation to the petition of the private respondent concerning citizenship. But when the Office of the Solicitor General finally appeared after failure to appear for few hearings, it contended that the trial court should not have ordered the correction of the relevant entries in the Local Civil Registry since they involved substantial matters which should not have been decided in "a merely summary proceeding" but rather in "an appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented".

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of First Instance erred in rendering a decision granting the petition of the private respondent on corrections of entry in the Local Civil registry.

HELD:

NO. The court was correct in ordering the Local Civil Registry on corrections of entry of the citizenship of the private respondent.Notwithstandingthe contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the changes in the Local Civil Registry requested by the petitioner were “significant” involving citizenship of the petitioner and such substantial matters should be decided in an appropriate adversary proceeding and not under a summary proceeding, the court was reasonable in rendering the decision. In fact, the decision was rendered under an appropriate adversary proceedings since the procedures followed by the court satisfies it to be such as furnishing a copy of the petition to the provincial fiscal, local civil registrar, office of the solicitor general. The notice of hearing was also posted in the bulletin board and was published in a newspaper in general circulation for once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. The failure of appearance and the failure to oppose such petition don’t change the adversarial character of the proceedings and it was neither the fault of the Provincial Fiscal nor the private respondent.