CASE DIGEST/ ANGAT VS REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 132244, 14 September 1999/ MARIE BETH REVILLA

 

ANGAT VS REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 132244, 14 September 1999

 

FACTS:

Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a naturalized Filipino citizen before he lost his citizenship due to naturalization in the United States. He filed a petition to restore his status as a Filipino resident under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Republic Act No. 965, and Republic Act No. 2630 before the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 272, on March 11, 1996. Petitioner requested permission to take his oath of loyalty to the Republic of the Philippines under R.A. 8171 on June 13, 1996. The motion was originally dismissed by the trial judge, but it was granted following a motion for reconsideration.

 

In accordance with R.A. 8171, the appellant was required to take his oath of allegiance. Following petitioner's oath of allegiance, the trial court released an order repatriating him and making him a Filipino resident under Republic Act No. 8171. The Bureau of Immigration was ordered to revoke his alien registry card and replace it with a certificate of identity as a Filipino citizen. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Request (virtually a motion for reconsideration) on March 19, 1997, claiming that the appeal should have been rejected by the court a quo for lack of jurisdiction because the appropriate venue for it was the Special Committee on Naturalization in accordance with the Constitution. President Fidel V. Ramos released Administrative Order No. 285 ("AO 285") on August 22, 1996. The Special Committee on Naturalization was entrusted by AO 285 with carrying out R.A 8171. The motion was granted, and the appeal was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal, claiming that the RTC made a substantial error in rejecting the petition by applying Administrative Order No. 285 retroactively in the absence of a clause on Retroactive Application.

 

ISSUE:

Whether if the RTC has authority to decide on repatriation cases.

 

RULING:

 

No, you can file a repatriation appeal with the Special Committee on Naturalization, not the RTC, which has no authority. As a result, the court's decision was null and void. RA No. 8171, which became law on October 23, 1995, allows Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship due to political or economic need to return home. Furthermore, when petitioner first invoked RA 965 and RA 2630, he was mistaken, for these laws could only extend to people who had violated their Philippine citizenship by serving in, or accepting a commission in, the armed forces of an allied nation or the armed forces of the United States, a substantive matter not alleged in his petition. Interestingly, under these laws, a person seeking to reclaim Philippine citizenship does not even need to file a petition in court; all he has to do is take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and record the oath with the appropriate civil registry.