The Republic of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. NORA FE SAGUN, Respondent

9/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 666
G.R. No. 187567. February 15, 2012.*
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

NORA FE SAGUN, respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; A direct recourse to

the Supreme Court from the decisions, final resolutions and orders
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) may be taken where only
questions of law are raised or involved.—At the outset, it is
necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court from the
decisions, final resolutions and orders of the RTC may be taken
where only questions of law are raised or involved. There is a
question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts, which does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by
the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a question of fact
when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of
the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact,
the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct
or not, is a question of law.
Constitutional Law; Civil Law; Citizenship; The Supreme
Court has consistently ruled that there is no proceeding
established by law, or the Rules for the judicial declaration of the
citizenship of an individual.—For sure, this Court has
consistently ruled that there is no proceeding established by law,
or the Rules for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an
individual. There is no specific legislation authorizing the
institution of a judicial proceeding to declare that a given person
is part of our citizenry. This was our ruling in Yung Uan Chu v.
Republic, 159 SCRA 593 (1988), citing the early case of Tan v.
Republic of the Philippines, 107 Phil. 632 (1960), where we clearly
stated: Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for
the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Courts
of justice exist for settlement of justiciable controversies, which
imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or
omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or
sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of
the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the
court may pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000165b2f334a2f3fd998e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
* FIRST DIVISION.
322
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Sagun
their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial

power.
Same; Same; Same; If the citizenship of a person was subject
to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge
under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been
commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution.—Under
Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of
a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father
followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the
age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. The right
to elect Philippine citizenship was recognized in the 1973
Constitution when it provided that “[t]hose who elect Philippine
citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of
nineteen hundred and thirty-five” are citizens of the Philippines.
Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was carried
over to the 1987 Constitution which states that “[t]hose born
before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” are Philippine
citizens. It should be noted, however, that the 1973 and 1987
Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citizenship
should not be understood as having a curative effect on any
irregularity in the acquisition of citizenship for those covered by
the 1935 Constitution. If the citizenship of a person was subject to
challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge
under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been
commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution.
Same; Same; Same; It is a settled rule that only legitimate
children follow the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate
children are under the parental authority of the mother and follow
her nationality.—Being a legitimate child, respondent’s
citizenship followed that of her father who is Chinese, unless
upon reaching the age of majority, she elects Philippine
citizenship. It is a settled rule that only legitimate children follow
the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate children are
under the parental authority of the mother and follow her
nationality. An illegitimate child of Filipina need not perform any
act to confer upon him all the rights and privileges attached to
citizens of the Philippines; he automatically becomes a citizen
himself. But in the case of respondent, for her to be considered a

Filipino citizen, she must have validly elected Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
323
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 323
Republic vs. Sagun
Same; Same; Same; Procedure in Making a Valid Election of

Philippine Citizenship.—Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625,
enacted pursuant to Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935
Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in
order to make a valid election of Philippine citizenship, to wit:
Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with subsection (4), [S]ection 1, Article IV, of the Constitution
shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the
party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths,
and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry. The said party
shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of
allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines. Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of
electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of election
under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and
Government of the Philippines; and (3) registration of the
statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil
registry. Furthermore, no election of Philippine citizenship shall
be accepted for registration under C.A. No. 625 unless the party
exercising the right of election has complied with the
requirements of the Alien Registration Act of 1950. In other
words, he should first be required to register as an alien.
Pertinently, the person electing Philippine citizenship is required
to file a petition with the Commission of Immigration and
Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration) for the cancellation of
his alien certificate of registration based on his aforesaid election
of Philippine citizenship and said Office will initially decide,
based on the evidence presented the validity or invalidity of said
election. Afterwards, the same is elevated to the Ministry (now
Department) of Justice for final determination and review.
Same; Same; Same; There is no specific statutory or
procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for
declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts.—
It should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or
procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for
declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts.
The special proceeding provided under Section 2, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court on Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry, merely allows any interested party to file an action for

cancellation or correction of entry in the civil registry, i.e.,
election, loss and recovery of citizenship, which is not the relief
prayed for by the respondent. Be that as it may, even if we set
aside this procedural infirmity, still the trial
324
Republic vs. Sagun
court’s conclusion that respondent duly elected Philippine

citizenship is erroneous since the records undisputably show that
respondent failed to comply with the legal requirements for a
valid election. Specifically, respondent had not executed a sworn
statement of her election of Philippine citizenship. The only
documentary evidence submitted by respondent in support of her
claim of alleged election was her oath of allegiance, executed 12
years after she reached the age of majority, which was
unregistered. As aptly pointed out by the petitioner, even
assuming arguendo that respondent’s oath of allegiance suffices,
its execution was not within a reasonable time after respondent
attained the age of majority and was not registered with the
nearest civil registry as required under Section 1 of C.A. No. 625.
The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that
the election should be made generally within three (3) years from
reaching the age of majority. Moreover, there was no satisfactory
explanation proffered by respondent for the delay and the failure
to register with the nearest local civil registry.
Same; Same; Same; The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts
showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of
election of Philippine citizenship.—Respondent clearly failed to
comply with the procedural requirements for a valid and effective
election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert that
the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election exercises
constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since
the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of
citizenship by election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar acts
showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take the place of
election of Philippine citizenship. Hence, respondent cannot now
be allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer upon her
Philippine citizenship when clearly she has failed to validly elect
Philippine citizenship. As we held in Ching, the prescribed
procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a
tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the elector
is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,

thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having
failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondent’s
petition before the trial court must be denied.
325
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 325

Republic vs. Sagun
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Br. 3.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Geronimo R. Evangelista, Jr. for respondent.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari filed by
the Solicitor General on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines, seeking the reversal of the April 3, 2009
Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, of
Baguio City in Spcl. Pro. Case No. 17-R. The RTC granted
the petition2 filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun entitled
“In re: Judicial Declaration of Election of Filipino
Citizenship, Nora Fe Sagun v. The Local Civil Registrar of
Baguio City.”
The facts follow:
Respondent is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a
Chinese national, and Marta Borromeo, a Filipino citizen.
She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City3 and did
not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after getting
married to Alex Sagun, she executed an Oath of Allegiance4
to the Republic of the Philippines. Said document was
notarized by Atty. Cristeta Leung on December 17, 1992,
but was not recorded and registered with the Local Civil
Registrar of Baguio City.
Sometime in September 2005, respondent applied for a
Philippine passport. Her application was denied due to the
citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on
her
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 27-32. Penned by Presiding Judge Fernando Vil
Pamintuan.
2 Records, pp. 1-4.
3 Id., at p. 60.
4 Id., at p. 7.
326

Republic vs. Sagun
birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.

Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her
election of Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local
Civil Registrar of Baguio City be ordered to annotate the
same on her birth certificate.
In her petition, respondent averred that she was raised
as a Filipino, speaks Ilocano and Tagalog fluently and
attended local schools in Baguio City, including Holy
Family Academy and the Saint Louis University.
Respondent claimed that despite her part-Chinese
ancestry, she always thought of herself as a Filipino. She is
a registered voter of Precinct No. 0419A of Barangay
Manuel A. Roxas in Baguio City and had voted in local and
national elections as shown in the Voter Certification5
issued by Atty. Maribelle Uminga of the Commission on
Elections of Baguio City.
She asserted that by virtue of her positive acts, she has
effectively elected Philippine citizenship and such fact
should be annotated on her record of birth so as to entitle
her to the issuance of a Philippine passport.
On August 7, 2007, the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) entered its appearance as counsel for the Republic of
the Philippines and authorized the City Prosecutor of
Baguio City to appear in the above mentioned case.6
However, no comment was filed by the City Prosecutor.
After conducting a hearing, the trial court rendered the
assailed Decision on April 3, 2009 granting the petition and
declaring respondent a Filipino citizen. The fallo of the
decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

Petitioner Nora Fe Sagun y Chan is hereby DECLARED [a]
FILIPINO CITIZEN, having chosen or elected Filipino
citizenship.
_______________
5 Id., at p. 8.
6 Id., at p. 28.
327
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 327

Republic vs. Sagun
Upon payment of the required fees, the Local Civil Registrar of

Baguio City is hereby directed to annotate [on] her birth
certificate, this judicial declaration of Filipino citizenship of said
petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.”7
Contending that the lower court erred in so ruling,

petitioner, through the OSG, directly filed the instant
recourse via a petition for review on certiorari before us.
Petitioner raises the following issues:
I
Whether or not an action or proceeding for judicial declaration
of Philippine citizenship is procedurally and jurisdictionally
permissible; and,
II
Whether or not an election of Philippine citizenship, made
twelve (12) years after reaching the age of majority, is considered
to have been made “within a reasonable time” as interpreted by
jurisprudence.8
Petitioner argues that respondent’s petition before the

RTC was improper on two counts: for one, law and
jurisprudence clearly contemplate no judicial action or
proceeding for the declaration of Philippine citizenship; and
for another, the pleaded registration of the oath of
allegiance with the local civil registry and its annotation on
respondent’s birth certificate are the ministerial duties of
the registrar; hence, they require no court order. Petitioner
asserts that respondent’s petition before the trial court
seeking a judicial declaration of her election of Philippine
citizenship undeniably entails a determination and
consequent declaration of her status as a Filipino citizen
which is not allowed under our legal system. Petitioner also
argues that if respondent’s intention in filing the petition is
ultimately to have her oath of allegiance regis-
_______________
7 Rollo, p. 32.
8 Id., at p. 59.
328

Republic vs. Sagun
tered with the local civil registry and annotated on her

birth certificate, then she does not have to resort to court
proceedings.
Petitioner further argues that even assuming that
respondent’s action is sanctioned, the trial court erred in
finding respondent as having duly elected Philippine
citizenship since her purported election was not in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and was
not made within a “reasonable time.” Petitioner points out
that while respondent executed an oath of allegiance before
a notary public, there was no affidavit of her election of
Philippine citizenship. Additionally, her oath of allegiance
which was not registered with the nearest local civil
registry was executed when she was already 33 years old or
12 years after she reached the age of majority. Accordingly,
it was made beyond the period allowed by law.
In her Comment,9 respondent avers that
notwithstanding her failure to formally elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, she has in
fact effectively elected Filipino citizenship by her
performance of positive acts, among which is the exercise of
the right of suffrage. She claims that she had voted and
participated in all local and national elections from the
time she was of legal age. She also insists that she is a
Filipino citizen despite the fact that her “election” of
Philippine citizenship was delayed and unregistered.
In reply,10 petitioner argues that the special
circumstances invoked by respondent, like her continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, her having been
educated in schools in the country, her choice of staying
here despite the naturalization of her parents as American
citizens, and her being a registered voter, cannot confer on
her Philippine citizenship as the law specifically provides
the requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship
by election.
_______________
9 Id., at pp. 43-44.
10 Id., at pp. 48-49.
329
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 329

Republic vs. Sagun
Essentially, the issues for our resolution are: (1) whether

respondent’s petition for declaration of election of
Philippine citizenship is sanctioned by the Rules of Court

and jurisprudence; (2) whether respondent has effectively
elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by law.
The petition is meritorious.
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct
recourse to this Court from the decisions, final resolutions
and orders of the RTC may be taken where only questions
of law are raised or involved. There is a question of law
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts, which does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there
is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as
to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when
there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the
conclusion drawn therefrom is correct or not, is a question
of law.11
In the present case, petitioner assails the propriety of
the decision of the trial court declaring respondent a
Filipino citizen after finding that respondent was able to
substantiate her election of Filipino citizenship. Petitioner
contends that respondent’s petition for judicial declaration
of election of Philippine citizenship is procedurally and
jurisdictionally impermissible. Verily, petitioner has raised
questions of law as the resolution of these issues rest solely
on what the law provides given the attendant
circumstances.
In granting the petition, the trial court stated:
“This Court believes that petitioner was able to fully

substantiate her petition regarding her election of Filipino
citizenship, and the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City should be
ordered to anno-
_______________
11 Sarsaba v. Vda. de Te, G.R. No. 175910, July 30, 2009, 594 SCRA 410, 420.
330

Republic vs. Sagun
tate in her birth certificate her election of Filipino citizenship.

This Court adds that the petitioner’s election of Filipino
citizenship should be welcomed by this country and people
because the petitioner has the choice to elect citizenship of
powerful countries like the United States of America and China,
however, petitioner has chosen Filipino citizenship because she

grew up in this country, and has learned to love the Philippines.
Her choice of electing Filipino citizenship is, in fact, a testimony
that many of our people still wish to live in the Philippines, and
are very proud of our country.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
Petitioner Nora Fe Sagun y Chan is hereby DECLARED as
FILIPINO CITIZEN, having chosen or elected Filipino
citizenship.”12
For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that there is

no proceeding established by law, or the Rules for the
judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual.13
There is no specific legislation authorizing the institution
of a judicial proceeding to declare that a given person is
part of our citizenry.14 This was our ruling in Yung Uan
Chu v. Republic15 citing the early case of Tan v. Republic of
the Philippines,16 where we clearly stated:
“Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the

judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Courts of
justice exist for settlement of justiciable controversies, which
imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or
omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or
sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of
the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the
court may pass upon, and
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
13 Yung Uan Chu v. Republic, No. L-34973, April 14, 1988, 159 SCRA 593, 597;
Board of Commissioners v. Domingo, No. L-21274, July 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 661, 664.
14 Id., at p. 598; Tan v. Republic of the Philippines, 107 Phil. 632, 634 (1960).
15 Id., at p. 597.
16 Supra note 14 at p. 633; Republic v. Maddela, Nos. L-21664 and L-21665,
March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 702, 705.
331
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 331

Republic vs. Sagun
make a pronouncement relative to their status. Otherwise, such a

pronouncement is beyond judicial power. x x x”
Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a

specific declaration of respondent’s Filipino citizenship as
such pronouncement was not within the court’s
competence.
As to the propriety of respondent’s petition seeking a

judicial declaration of election of Philippine citizenship, it
is imperative that we determine whether respondent is
required under the law to make an election and if so,
whether she has complied with the procedural
requirements in the election of Philippine citizenship.
When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the
governing charter was the 1935 Constitution, which
declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers
are citizens of the Philippines and elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Sec. 1, Art.
IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:
“Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

x x x x
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and,
upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.”
Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution,

the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino
mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the
father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child
elected Philippine citizenship. The right to elect Philippine
citizenship was recognized in the 1973 Constitution when it
provided that “[t]hose who elect Philippine citizenship
pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen
hundred and thirty-five” are citizens of the Philippines.17
Likewise, this recognition by the 1973 Constitution was
carried over to the 1987 Constitution which states that
“[t]hose born before January
_______________
17 Sec. 1(3), Art. III, 1973 Constitution.
332

Republic vs. Sagun
17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine

citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” are
Philippine citizens.18 It should be noted, however, that the
1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions on the election of
Philippine citizenship should not be understood as having a
curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition of
citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. If
the citizenship of a person was subject to challenge under
the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the
new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been

commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution.19
Being a legitimate child, respondent’s citizenship
followed that of her father who is Chinese, unless upon
reaching the age of majority, she elects Philippine
citizenship. It is a settled rule that only legitimate children
follow the citizenship of the father and that illegitimate
children are under the parental authority of the mother
and follow her nationality.20 An illegitimate child of
Filipina need not perform any act to confer upon him all
the rights and privileges attached to citizens of the
Philippines; he automatically becomes a citizen himself.21
But in the case of respondent, for her to be considered a
Filipino citizen, she must have validly elected Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625,22 enacted pursuant
to Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution,
prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to
make a valid election of Philippine citizenship, to wit:
_______________
18 Sec. 1(3), Art. IV, 1987 Constitution.
19 Re: Application For Admission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D.
Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999, 316 SCRA 1, 7-8.
20 Go, Sr. v. Ramos, G.R. Nos. 167569-70 and 171946, September 4,
2009, 598 SCRA 266, 294-295.
21 Id., at p. 295.
22 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OPTION TO ELECT
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP SHALL BE DECLARED BY PERSON WHOSE MOTHER IS A
FILIPINO CITIZEN, approved on June 7, 1941.
333
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 333

Republic vs. Sagun
“Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in

accordance with subsection (4), [S]ection 1, Article IV, of the
Constitution shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and
sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to
administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.
The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the
oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines.”
Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of

electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a statement of
election under oath; (2) an oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3)

registration of the statement of election and of the oath
with the nearest civil registry.23
Furthermore, no election of Philippine citizenship shall
be accepted for registration under C.A. No. 625 unless the
party exercising the right of election has complied with the
requirements of the Alien Registration Act of 1950. In other
words, he should first be required to register as an alien.24
Pertinently, the person electing Philippine citizenship is
required to file a petition with the Commission of
Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration)
for the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration
based on his aforesaid election of Philippine citizenship and
said Office will initially decide, based on the evidence
presented the validity or invalidity of said election.25
Afterwards, the same is elevated to the Ministry (now
Department) of Justice for final determination and
review.26
It should be stressed that there is no specific statutory
or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a
petition
_______________
23 Ma v. Fernandez, Jr., G.R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA
566, 577.
24 Ronaldo P. Ledesma, AN OUTLINE OF PHILIPPINE IMMIGRATION AND
CITIZENSHIP LAWS, Vol. I, 2006 ed., pp. 526.

25 Id., at p. 527, citing Memorandum Order dated August 18, 1956 of
the CID.
26 Id., citing DOJ Opinion No. 182 dated August 19, 1982.
334

Republic vs. Sagun
for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before

the courts. The special proceeding provided under Section
2, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry, merely allows
any interested party to file an action for cancellation or
correction of entry in the civil registry, i.e., election, loss
and recovery of citizenship, which is not the relief prayed
for by the respondent.
Be that as it may, even if we set aside this procedural
infirmity, still the trial court’s conclusion that respondent
duly elected Philippine citizenship is erroneous since the
records undisputably show that respondent failed to

comply with the legal requirements for a valid election.
Specifically, respondent had not executed a sworn
statement of her election of Philippine citizenship. The only
documentary evidence submitted by respondent in support
of her claim of alleged election was her oath of allegiance,
executed 12 years after she reached the age of majority,
which was unregistered. As aptly pointed out by the
petitioner, even assuming arguendo that respondent’s oath
of allegiance suffices, its execution was not within a
reasonable time after respondent attained the age of
majority and was not registered with the nearest civil
registry as required under Section 1 of C.A. No. 625. The
phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean
that the election should be made generally within three (3)
years from reaching the age of majority.27 Moreover, there
was no satisfactory explanation proffered by respondent for
the delay and the failure to register with the nearest local
civil registry.
Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent
clearly failed to comply with the procedural requirements
for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship.
Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and
the participation in election exercises constitutes a positive
act of election
_______________
27 Re: Application For Admission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D.
Ching, supra note 19 at p. 9; Ma v. Fernandez, Jr., supra note 23 at p. 578.
335
VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 335

Republic vs. Sagun
of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays

down the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by
election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other similar
acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot take
the place of election of Philippine citizenship. Hence,
respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention
of the court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship when
clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship.
As we held in Ching,28 the prescribed procedure in electing
Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and
painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to
execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship

and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil
registry. Having failed to comply with the foregoing
requirements, respondent’s petition before the trial court
must be denied.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated April 3, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3 of
Baguio City in Spcl. Pro. Case No. 17-R is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The petition for judicial declaration of election
of Philippine citizenship filed by respondent Nora Fe Sagun
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,

Bersamin and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside.
Notes.—R.A. No. 9225 was enacted to allow re-

acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship for: 1)
natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country; and 2)
_______________
28 Id., at p. 12.
336

Republic vs. Sagun
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the

effectivity of the law, become citizens of a foreign country.
(De Guzman vs. Commission on Elections, 590 SCRA 149
[2009])
Departure of respondent recognized as a Filipino citizen
and who intends to return here did not render his revoked
application for citizenship moot. (Gonzalez vs. Pennisi, 614
SCRA 292 [2010])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Republic of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. NORA FE SAGUN, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Republic of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. NORA FE SAGUN, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Republic of The Philippines, Petitioner, vs. NORA FE SAGUN, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/1/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 666

G.R. No. 187567. February 15, 2012.*

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; A direct recourse to

322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sagun

their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial

himself. But in the case of respondent, for her to be considered a

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 323

Republic vs. Sagun

Same; Same; Same; Procedure in Making a Valid Election of

Registry, merely allows any interested party to file an action for

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Sagun

court’s conclusion that respondent duly elected Philippine

is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 325

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 327

Upon payment of the required fees, the Local Civil Registrar of

Contending that the lower court erred in so ruling,

Petitioner argues that respondent’s petition before the

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tered with the local civil registry and annotated on her

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 329

Essentially, the issues for our resolution are: (1) whether

Philippine citizenship is sanctioned by the Rules of Court

“This Court believes that petitioner was able to fully

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tate in her birth certificate her election of Filipino citizenship.

however, petitioner has chosen Filipino citizenship because she

For sure, this Court has consistently ruled that there is

“Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 331

make a pronouncement relative to their status. Otherwise, such a

Clearly, it was erroneous for the trial court to make a

As to the propriety of respondent’s petition seeking a

“Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution,

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine

new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been

FILIPINO CITIZEN, approved on June 7, 1941.

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 333

“Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in

Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of

Constitution and Government of the Philippines; and (3)

CITIZENSHIP LAWS, Vol. I, 2006 ed., pp. 526.

334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before

records undisputably show that respondent failed to

VOL. 666, FEBRUARY 15, 2012 335

of Philippine citizenship since the law specifically lays

execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship