Conflict of Laws: Citizenship and Domicile

A.Nationality Principle

The law of country where a person is a national governs his family rights and duties, status, condition and legal capacity.

As opposed to “domiciliary principle” which applies the law of the country of domicile


B.Citizenship and Modes of Acquisition

Citizenship – status of being a citizen of a state who owes allegiance to the state and is entitled to its protection and to the enjoyment of civil and political rights therein

WHO ARE CITIZENS:
1. Natural persons

• Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of adoption of the 1987 Constitution
• Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines
• Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
• Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law

2. Juridical persons – 60% Filipino-owned




2 MODES OF ACQUIRING PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP:

1. By blood (jus sanguinis) – natural-born citizens
2. By naturalization – naturalized citizens

JUS SANGUINIS


Valles vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 137000, Aug. 9, 2000

FACTS:

Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia to a Filipino father and an Australian mother. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines, where she later married a Filipino and has since then participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. In the May 1998 elections, she ran for governor but Valles fileda petition for her disqualification as candidate on the ground that she is an Australian.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rosalind is an Australian or a Filipino

HELD:

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.

The herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. The fact that she holds an Australian passport and alien registration certificate is an assertion of her Australian citizenship but not a renunciation of her Philippine citizenship. Moreover, by filing her certificate of candidacy, she has effectively renounced her Australian citizenship.

C.Election of Citizenship

PROCEDURE:

• Express such intention in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oath
• File the sworn statement, together with oath of allegiance to the Philippine Constitution, with the nearest civil registry

**The election must be made within reasonable time (3 years) from reaching the age of majority.


D.Dual Citizenship

Dual Citizenship – the status of a person who is a citizen of two or more countries at the same time

WHO MAY POSSESS DUAL CITIZENSHIP:

1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such children are citizens of that country
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship
4. Those who retained or reacquired their Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 after having been naturalized in a foreign country

• GENERAL RULE: Dual citizenship is retained.
• EXCEPTION: The person expressly renounces his other citizenship by filing a certificate of candidacy or by accepting an appointive position in government.

NOTA BENE: Under RA 9225 (effective August 29, 2003), the mere filing of a certificate of candidacy is no longer deemed an express renunciation of foreign citizenship in order to run for public office. The candidate for public office with dual citizenship must (1) take an oath of allegiance and (2) execute a renunciation of foreign citizenship. However, the foregoing requirements do not apply to natural-born Filipinos before running for public office.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP AS GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION FROM OFFICE; FILING OF CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY AS EFFECTIVE RENUNCIATION OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP


Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999

FACTS:

Mercado and Manzano are both running for vice-mayor of Makati City. Manzano got the highest number of votes but his proclamation was suspended in view of a pending petition for his disqualification on the ground that he is an American citizen. Manzano is born in 1955 of Filipino father and mother. However, since he is born in the US, he is considered as an American under the jus soli doctrine. Upon his return to the Philippines, he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration.

ISSUE: Whether or not Manzano is disqualified on ground that he is an alien

HELD:

Manzano is a dual citizen, but his being such does not disqualify him from running for public office. Under the LGC, what is prohibited is dual allegiance and not dual citizenship. The two terms are different.

Dual allegiance refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states.

Moreover, Manzano is considered to have renounced his American citizenship by filing his certificate of candidacy.


NOTE: This case doctrine has no more application after the effectivity of RA 9225 on August 29, 2003.

E.Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship

HOW PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IS LOST:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country (prior to RA 9225)
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country
4. By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted

EXPRESS RENUNCIATION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP


Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, G.R. No. L-83882, Jan. 24, 1989

FACTS:

Petitioner is a Portuguese national who acquired Philippine citizenship by naturalization. However, despite his naturalization, he still applied for and was issued a Portuguese passport and declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed.

ISSUE: Whether petitioner’s acts constitute renunciation of his Philippine citizenship

HELD:

Express renunciation means a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after having renounced his Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport. To the mind of the court the foregoing acts considered together constitute an express renunciation of petitioner’s Philippine citizenship acquired through naturalization.

HOW PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP IS REACQUIRED:

1. By direct act of Congress
2. By naturalization – take the oath of allegiance to the Republic (RA 9225)
3. By administrative repatriation – take the oath of allegiance to the Republic and register the same in the local civil registry of the place where person resides or last resided; original citizenship is recovered

REPATRIATION


Bengson III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001

FACTS:

Respondent Cruz was a natural-born Filipino who lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps and subsequently became a naturalized American. When he returned to the Philippines, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation. Later, he ran for a seat in Congress and won. But Bengson III questioned his election into office on the ground that he was not a natural-born Filipino.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cruz’s repatriation resulted in his reacquisition of his status as natural-born Filipino

HELD:

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

In respondent Cruz’s case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he rendered service in the Armed Forces of the United States. However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 2630.

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.

F. Citizenship by Naturalization

3 MODES OF NATURALIZATION:

1. Administrative naturalization - available only to aliens born and residing in the Philippines
2. Judicial naturalization
3. Legislative naturalization

QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE NATURALIZATION: (RA 9139)

1. Must be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth
2. Must not be less than 18 years old at the time of filing the petition
3. Must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principle of the Constitution and must have conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during the entire period of residence
4. Must have received his primary and secondary education in any public school or private educational institution
5. Must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation
6. Must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines
7. Must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people

GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION:

1. Made any false statement or misrepresentation or committed any violation of law, rules or regulation in connection with the petition for naturalization
2. Within 5 years next following the grant of Philippine citizenship, established permanent residence in a foreign country - covers the wife and children as well
3. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy in violation of any constitutional or legal provision requiring Philippine citizenship - covers the wife and children
4. Committed any act inimical to national security - covers the wife and children

G. The Lex Domicilii Rule

Lex domicilii (Domiciliary principle) - the law of the place of domicile governs

Domicile - place of habitual residence; a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent


ELEMENTS:

1. Physical presence
2. Animus manendi - intention of returning there permanently

**The law of the forum governs the standards of domicile. If domicile is put in issue, the court will apply its own laws to determine the controversy.


H. Kinds of Domicile

3 KINDS:

1. Domicile of origin or by birth
2. Domicile of choice
3. Domicile by operation of law

I. Rules regarding Domicile

3 RULES:

1. A man has a domicile somewhere
2. A domicile once established remains until a new one is acquired
3. A man can have but only one domicile at a time

HOW A NEW DOMICILE IS ACQUIRED:

1. Actual removal or actual change of domicile
2. Bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one
3. Acts which correspond with such purpose

**All the foregoing elements must be proved in order to rebut the presumption of Continuity of Domicile.


J. Domicile and Residence

Residence - the actual relationship of an individual to a certain place; physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country

Residence vs. Domicile

“Residence” is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary; “domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man ma have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may have numerous places of residence. His place of residence is generally his place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessarily so since no length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile. (Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995)

DOMICILE FOR ELECTION PURPOSES


Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, supra

FACTS:

Petitioner Imelda Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte. She stated in the COC that she is a resident of the place for seven months. Private respondent Montejo subsequently filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification on the ground that Imelda failed to meet the constitutional requirement of one-year residency. COMELEC granted the Petition for Disqualification, holding that Imelda is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City as her place of domicile when she lived and even voted in Ilocos and Manila.

ISSUE: Whether or not Imelda is deemed to have abandoned her domicile of origin

HELD:

An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residence in different places. Residence implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. Thus, the assertion that “she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places” flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election purposes.

K. Nationality and Domicile of Corporations

**The nationality of a private corporation is determined by the character or citizenship of its controlling stockholders.

**The domicile of a domestic corporation is its principal place of business (contained in the AOI). For foreign corporations, their domicile is in the country under whose laws they are incorporated.

2 TESTS TO DETERMINE FILIPINO CORPORATION:

1. Grandfather rule - governs the strict application of the ownership of a corporation (generally 60% Filipino-owned)
2. Control test - a corporation that is at least 60% Filipino-owned is considered a Filipino for purposes of determining the Filipino ownership of a corporation whose nationality is put in issue

CORPORATION DOMICILED IN ONE STATE BUT DOING BUSINESS IN ANOTHER IS A RESIDENT OF THE LATTER


Northwest Orient Airlines, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 112573, Feb. 9, 1995

FACTS:

Northwest, a US corporation, and Sharp, a Filipino corporation but with a branch in Japan, entered into an agreement whereby the former authorized the latter to sell its air transportation tickets. Sharp, however, was unable to remit the proceeds of the ticket sales, prompting Northwest to sue for collection in Japan. Summons was served on Sharp’s branch office in Japan but because the manager authorized to receive summons was said to be in Manila, the same was also served on Sharp’s Manila head office through diplomatic channels. Sharp nevertheless failed to appear during the hearing and judgment was rendered. Northwest now filed a case before the Philippine court to enforce the foreign judgment.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Japanese court acquired jurisdiction over the person of Sharp

HELD:

The domicile of a corporation belongs to the state where it was incorporated. In a strict technical sense, such domicile as a corporation may have is single in its essence and a corporation can only have one domicile which is the state of its creation. Nonetheless, a corporation formed in one state may, for certain purposes, be regarded as a resident in another state in which it has offices and transacts business.

In as much as Sharp was admittedly doing business in Japan through its duly registered branches at the time the collection suit against it was filed, then in the light of the processual presumption, Sharp may be deemed a resident of Japan, and, as such, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the courts therein and may be deemed to have assented to the said court’s lawful methods of serving process.

FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES IS A RESIDENT


State Investment House, Inc. vs. Citibank, et al, G.R. No. 79926-27, Oct. 17, 1991

FACTS:

Consolidated Mines, Inc. (CMI) obtained loans from Citibank, Bank of America and HSBC, all foreign corporations but with branches in the Philippines. Meanwhile, State Investment House, Inc. (SIHI) and State Financing Center, Inc. (SFCI), also creditors of CMI, filed collection suits against the latter with writs of preliminary attachment. Subsequently, the three banks jointly filed with the court a petition for involuntary insolvency of CMI. SHI and SFCI opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are not resident creditors in contemplation of the Insolvency Law.

ISSUE: Whether or not a foreign corporation with a branch in the Philippines and doing business therein can be considered a resident

HELD:

Foreign corporations duly licensed to do business in the Philippines are considered “residents” of the Philippines, as the word is understood in Sec. 20 of the Insolvency Law, authorizing at least three resident creditors of the Philippines to file a petition to declare a corporation insolvent. The Tax Code declares that the term “resident foreign corporation applies to foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the Philippines” as distinguished from a “non-resident foreign corporation” which is not engaged in trade or business within the Philippines. The Offshore Banking Law sates that: “Branches, subsidiaries, affiliates, extension offices or any other units of corporation or juridical person organized under the laws of any foreign country operating in the Philippines shall be considered residents of the Philippines.” The General Banking Act places “branches and agencies in the Philippines of foreign banks” in the category as commercial banks, rural banks, stock savings and loan association making no distinction between the former ad the latter in so far as the terms “banking institutions” and “banks” are used in said Act.