ARTICLE IV

CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in the accordance with
law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may
reacquired in the manner provided by law.

be

lost

or

Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens

shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed, under the law to have
renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Republic Act No. 9225
August 29, 2003

AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE

CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP
PERMANENT.
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH
ACT. NO. 63, AS AMENDED AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
Section 1. Short Title this act shall be known as the
"Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of
2003."
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared
the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of
another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, naturalborn citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have
re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the
following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws
and legal orders promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I
hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and
that I imposed this obligation upon myself
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose
of evasion."
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
taking the aforesaid oath.

Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried

child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below
eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire
Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be
deemed citizenship of the Philippines.
Section
5. Civil
and
Political
Rights
and
Liabilities - Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political
rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and
the following conditions:
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of
surffrage must Meet the requirements under
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic
Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing
laws;
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines
shall meet the qualification for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and existing
laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
before any public officer authorized to administer
an oath;
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall
subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities prior to their assumption of
office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of
allegiance to the country where they took that
oath;
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in
the Philippines shall apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice; and

(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to

any public office in the Philippines cannot be
exercised by, or extended to, those who:
(a) are candidates for or are occupying any
public office in the country of which they
are naturalized citizens; and/or
(b) are in active service as commissioned or
non-commissioned officers in the armed
forces of the country which they are
naturalized citizens.
Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or
provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid,
any other section or provision not affected thereby shall
remain valid and effective.
Section 7. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees,
orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity Clause This Act shall take
effect after fifteen (15) days following its publication in
theOfficial Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general
circulation.
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or
to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad. (9a)
Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is
subject to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions,
both with respect to the order of succession and to the
amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity
of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the
national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the

property and regardless of the country wherein said

property may be found. (10a)
Article 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the
law of the nation of the decedent. (n)

G.R. No. L-16517

November 29, 1961

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF GERARDO

YU, alias MONGMONG, TO BE ADMITTED A
CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, GERARDO YU alias
MONGMONG, petitioner-appellant, vs.REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, oppositorLABRADOR, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Bohol, Hon. Hipolito Alo, presiding, dismissing the
petition of Gerardo Yu alias Mongmong for
naturalization.

Petitioner, is a legitimate son of Yu Hing Se and Irinea

Tan, subjects of Nationalist China. He was born in
Calape, Bohol on April 22, 1930. He has permanently
resided there since his birth, never leaving the
Philippines. No declaration of intention to become a
citizen was filed by him for the reason that petitioner
was born in the Philippines and has completed his
elementary education in the public schools and his
secondary education in private schools recognized by
the government.
Opposition to the application was filed by the Republic
of the Philippines on the ground that applicant's
probity or capacity for truth is questionable, after he
misrepresented himself as well as his mother to be
Filipino citizens which he went through two separate
marriage ceremonies with his wife; admitted violation
of the income tax law and consequent lack of respect
for his citizenship, and lack of knowledge of the
responsibilities thereof. The court below found that he
committed falsification in his application for marriage
license (Exh. "1") when he declared therein that his
citizenship is Filipino; that he also made a false
statement when in his marriage contract with one Elisa
M. Bustamante, on August 18, 1956, he stated that his
nationality is Filipino (Exh. "SS"), and that he made a
third false statement when he married his wife on May
4, 1957 before the parish priest of the Immaculate
Concepcion Church, Cubao, Quezon City (Exh. "TT"),
when he declared that he was a Filipino.
The court below, upon finding the above
statements made by petitioner, declared:
Q

How about your nationality?

Chinese

In your marriage application?

Yes, Sir.

false

But the fallacy or mendacity in this assertion

was bared when oppositor offered in evidence
petitioner's application for marriage license
(Exhibit 1) wherein he states that he is a Filipino
citizen. After Exhibit 1 had been offered in
evidence, petitioner again took the witness
stand and explaining the contents of Exhibit 1
he asserted that, while he and his future wife
were in the City Hall of Manila, an unknown
person approached them and offered his help in
the preparation of the papers; that this unknown
person asked the necessary data; that two
hours after, the unknown person handed over
documents to be signed by them; that to his
(petitioner's) surprise it appeared in exhibit I
that his nationality was Filipino, notwithstanding
the fact that he previously told the unknown
person that he was a Chinese citizen.
If it were true that petitioner had discovered
before hand that his application for marriage
license (Exhibit 1) stated that he was a Filipino
citizen, it is strange why he subscribed it under
oath before a Notary Public.
To save himself from the damaging effect of his
application for marriage license (Exhibit 1),
petitioner asserted that his application for
marriage license (Exhibit 1) was actually signed
by him on the date of his marriage August 18,
1956, but it was antedated to make it appear to
have been signed by him on August 6, 1956;
that he did not appear before a Notary Public to
swear to this marriage license (Exhibit 1); that
after receiving marriage license on August 18,
1956 he and his future wife were immediately
taken upstairs the City Hall of Manila where their
marriage was solemnized by a Minister who,
after the marriage, gave them the marriage
contract. (Exhibit "SS"). (pp. 25-27, Record on
Appeal).

The judge, therefore, denied the petition in the

following language:
We sympathize with petitioner in his eagerness
to become a Filipino citizen; but it would be a
gross dereliction of duty to disregard the law
requiring every applicant for naturalization to be
of good moral character. Although petitioner is a
physician, this alone is insufficient to entitle him
to become a citizen of the nation. He must
further show that he is a law-abiding person, a
man of sterling character capable to stand
against the slightest temptation to transgress
any law or rules of conduct sanctioned by
human
dignity.
Without
these
moral
qualifications, he can not be considered an asset
to the country, whatever may be the magnitude
of his knowledge in medical science. (p. 30,
Record on Appeal)
In his appeal before us, counsel for petitioner-appellant
argues that when petitioner-appellant and his wife
went to the City Hall in Manila for the purpose of
contracting a secret marriage, he was totally ignorant
of the procedure for marriage, that the person who
prepared his application for marriage license never
asked him his citizenship; and that he signed the
papers without reading and verifying the truth of the
statements appearing therein; that petitioner and his
wife belong to the younger generation and they did
not have any friends or acquaintances who would
intercede for and help them in their application for
marriage license; that the petitioner-appellant was
indubitably the victim of the pernicious practice of
unscrupulous individuals known as "fixers" and that it
was his misfortune to have such an individual prepare
his application, etc.; that the evident good faith of
petitioner is shown by the fact that he married his
present wife in a second religious ceremony; and that
he has passed his course in medicine with high honors,
and is now engaged in the practice of his profession
(medical) since June, 1957 together with his wife.

In the same way as the judge of the court below, we

are in sympathy with his plight but we cannot close
our eyes to the fact that he has violated the express
provision of the law that a foreigner desiring to
contract marriage must secure before hand a
certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage to be
issued by the diplomatic or consular official of his
country. (Art. 66, Republic Act No. 386.) This
requirement for foreigners is contained in the
instruction at the back of the application for marriage
license. He has also made false statements on three

occasions, for which he may not be excused, whatever

may have been his motives. With the above false
statements he made, it is evident that he cannot claim
an irreproachable character.
For the foregoing considerations, the decision
appealed from denying his petition for naturalization is
hereby affirmed, with costs against petitionerappellant.