Ma v. Fernandez (G.R. No. 183133; July 26, 2010)
FACTS: Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo), Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr. (Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma (Valeriano), Lechi Ann Ma (Lechi Ann), Arceli Ma (Arceli), Nicolas Ma (Nicolas), and Isidro Ma (Isidro) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.
Records reveal that petitioners Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and Valeriano were all born under aegis of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in the years 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively.
They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in this country for almost sixty (60) years; they spent their whole lives, studied and received their primary and secondary education in the country; they do not speak nor understand the Chinese language, have not set foot in Taiwan, and do not know any relative of their father; they have not even traveled abroad; and they have already raised their respective families in the Philippines.
During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACRs).
Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed to have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen) .It was only on27 July 2005or more than thirty (30) years after they elected Philippine citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so. On the other hand, there is no showing that Valeriano complied with the registration requirement.
Individual certifications all dated3 January 2005issued by the Office of the City Election Officer, Commission on Elections, SurigaoCity, show that all of them are registered voters of Barangay Washington, Precinct No. 0015A since June 1997, and that records on previous registrations are no longer available because of the mandatory general registration every ten (10) years.Moreover, aside from exercising their right of suffrage, Balgamelo is one of the incumbent Barangay Kagawads in Barangay Washington, Surigao City.
On16 February 2004, the Bureau of Immigration received the Complaint-Affidavit of a certain Mat G. Catral (Mr. Catral), alleging that Felix (Yao Kong) Ma and his seven (7) children are undesirable and overstaying aliens.Mr. Catral, however, did not participate in the proceedings, and the Ma family could not but believe that the complaint against them was politically motivated because they strongly supported a candidate in Surigao City in the 2004 National and Local Elections.
On9 November 2004, the Legal Department of the Bureau of Immigration charged them for violation of Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, otherwise known as the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.
After Felix Ma and his seven (7) children were afforded the opportunity to refute the allegations, the Board of Commissioners (Board) of the Bureau of Immigration (BI), composed of the public respondents, rendered a Judgment dated 2 February 2005 finding that Felix Ma and his children violated Commonwealth Act No. 613, Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e) in relation to BI Memorandum Order Nos. ADD-01-031 and ADD-01-035 dated 6 and22 August 2001, respectively.
In its Resolution of 8 April 2005, public respondents partially reconsidered their Judgment of 2 February 2005.They were convinced that Arceli is an immigrant under Commonwealth Act No. 613, Section 13(g). However, they denied the Motion for Reconsideration with respect to Felix Ma and the rest of his children.
On3 May 2005, only Balgamelo, Felix, Jr., and Valeriano filed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals.
On29 August 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition after finding that the petitioners failed to comply with the exacting standards of the law providing for the procedure and conditions for their continued stay in the Philippines either as aliens or as its nationals.
On 29 May 2008, it issued a Resolution denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 September 2007.
ISSUE:
Are petitioners herein Filipino Citizens?
HELD: The 1935 Constitution declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.The mandate states:
Section 1. The following are citizens of thePhilippines:
(1)xxx;
x x x x
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of thePhilippinesand, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
***
In 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 625 was enacted.It laid down the manner of electing Philippine citizenship, to wit:
Section 1.The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4), Section 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 thePhilippines.
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 thePhilippines; and (3) registration of the statement of election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry.
***
In both cases, we ruled against the petitioners because they belatedly complied with all the requirements. The acts of election and their registration with the nearest civil registry were all done beyond the reasonable period of three years upon reaching the age of majority.
The instant case presents a different factual setting.Petitioners complied with the first and second requirements upon reaching the age of majority.It was only the registration of the documents of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done.
We rule that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost and they should be allowed to complete the statutory requirements for such election.
Such conclusion, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, is in line with our decisions in In Re: Florencio Mallare, Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, and Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching.
In Mallare, Estebans exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age was deemed to be a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. The Court of Appeals, however, said that the case cannot support herein petitioners cause, pointing out that, unlike petitioner, Esteban is a natural child of a Filipina, hence, no other act would be necessary to confer on him the rights and privileges of a Filipino citizen, and that Esteban was born in 1929 prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 625.
In the Co case, Jose Ong, Jr. did more than exercise his right of suffrage, as he established his life here in thePhilippines.Again, such circumstance, while similar to that of herein petitioners, was not appreciated because it was ruled that any election of Philippine citizenship on the part of Ong would have resulted in absurdity, because the law itself had already elected Philippine citizenship for him as, apparently, while he was still a minor, a certificate of naturalization was issued to his father.
In Ching, it may be recalled that we denied his application for admission to the Philippine Bar because, in his case, all the requirements, to wit: (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 were complied with only fourteen (14) years after he reached the age of majority.Ching offered no reason for the late election of Philippine citizenship.
In all, the Court of Appeals found the petitioners argument of good faith and informal election unacceptable and held:
Their reliance in the ruling contained in Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, [which was decided on1 October 1999], is obviously flawed.It bears emphasis that the Supreme Court, in said case, did not adopt the doctrine laid down in In Re: Florencio Mallare. On the contrary, the Supreme Court was emphatic in pronouncing that the special circumstances invoked by Ching, i.e., his continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines and his being a certified public accountant, a registered voter and a former elected public official, cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship by election.
We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public official, continuous and uninterrupted stay in thePhilippines, and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship can take the place of election of citizenship.What we now say is that where, as in petitioners case, the election of citizenship has in fact been done and documented within the constitutional and statutory timeframe, the registration of the documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts of citizenship have publicly, consistently, and continuously been done.The actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over half a century by the herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine public which is equivalent to formal registration of the election of Philippine citizenship.
***
In Pascua v. Court of Appeals, we elucidated the principles of civil law on registration:
To register is to record or annotate.American and Spanish authorities are unanimous on the meaning of the term to register as to enter in a register; to record formally and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a list. In general, registration refers to any entry made in the books of the registry, including both registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal notes.In strict acceptation, it pertains to the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and permanently the right of ownership and other real rights. Simply stated, registration is made for the purpose of notification.
Actual knowledge may even have the effect of registration as to the person who has knowledge thereof.Thus, [i]ts purpose is to give notice thereof to all persons (and it) operates as a notice of the deed, contract, or instrument to others. As pertinent is the holding that registration neither adds to its validity nor converts an invalid instrument into a valid one between the parties.It lays emphasis on the validity of an unregistered document.
Notably, the petitioners timely took their oath of allegiance to thePhilippines.This was a serious undertaking.It was commitment and fidelity to the state coupled with a pledge to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance to any other state.This was unqualified acceptance of their identity as a Filipino and the complete disavowal of any other nationality.
Petitioners have passed decades of their lives in the Philippines as Filipinos.Their present status having been formed by their past, petitioners can no longer have any national identity except that which they chose upon reaching the age of reason.
Corollary to this fact, we cannot agree with the view of the Court of Appeals that since the ACR presented by the petitioners are no longer valid on account of the new requirement to present an E-series ACR, they are deemed not properly documented. On the contrary, petitioners should not be expected to secure E-series ACR because it would be inconsistent with the election of citizenship and its constructive registration through their acts made public, among others, their exercise of suffrage, election as public official, and continued and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines since birth.The failure to register as aliens is, obviously, consistent with petitioners election of Philippine citizenship.
The leanings towards recognition of the citizenship of children of Filipino mothers have been indicated not alone by the jurisprudence that liberalized the requirement on time of election, and recognized positive acts of Philippine citizenship.
The favor that is given to such children is likewise evident in the evolution of the constitutional provision on Philippine citizenship.
Thus, while the 1935 Constitution requires that children of Filipino mothers elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching their age of majority,upon the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, they automatically become Filipinos and need not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.The 1973 provision reads:
Section 1.The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1)xxx.
(2)Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
Better than the relaxation of the requirement, the 1987 Constitution now classifies them as natural-born citizens upon election of Philippine citizenship.Thus, Sec. 2, Article IV thereof provides:
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.
We are guided by this evolvement from election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority under the 1935 Philippine Constitution to dispensing with the election requirement under the 1973 Philippine Constitution to express classification of these children as natural-born citizens under the 1987 Constitution towards the conclusion that the omission of the 1941 statutory requirement of registration of the documents of election should not result in the obliteration of the right to Philippine citizenship.
Having a Filipino mother is permanent.It is the basis of the right of the petitioners to elect Philippine citizenship.Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance.The failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the election and resultingly negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother.The lacking requirements may still be complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative penalties, if any.The documents they submitted supporting their allegations that they have already registered with the civil registry, although belatedly, should be examined for validation purposes by the appropriate agency, in this case, the Bureau of Immigration.Other requirements embodied in the administrative orders and other issuances of the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Justice shall be complied with within a reasonable time.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 29 August 2007, and the Resolution dated 29 May 2008 of the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R. SP No. 89532 affirming the Judgment dated 2 February 2005, and the Resolution dated 8 April 2005of the Bureau of Immigration in BSI-D.C. No. AFF-04-574 OC-STF-04-09/23-1416 are hereby SET ASIDE with respect to petitioners Balgamelo Cabiling Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr., and Valeriano Cabiling Ma.Petitioners are given ninety (90) days from notice within which to COMPLYwith the requirements of the Bureau of Immigration embodied in its Judgment of2 February 2005.The Bureau of Immigration shall ENSURE that all requirements, including the payment of their financial obligations to the state, if any, have been complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate administrative fines;REVIEW the documents submitted by the petitioners; andACTthereon in accordance with the decision of this Court.
