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

_______________
* 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

324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

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 Allegiance4to 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

326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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 Certification5issued 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.6However, 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
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
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

330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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.13There 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.17Likewise,
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

332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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.21But 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.24Pertinently, 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.25Afterwards, 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

334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.