Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In her COC for Presidency on the May 2016 (2) Whether or not Poe satisfies the 10-year
elections, Grace Poe declared that she is a natural- residency requirement.
born citizen of the Philippines and that her
residence up to day before May 9, 2016 would HELD:
be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24,
2005. YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born
Filipino Citizen. For that, she satisfied the
Grace Poe was born in 1968., found as newborn constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos
infant in Jaro,Iloilo and was legally adopted by may run for Presidency.
RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (FPJ) and JESUS
SONORA POE (SUSAN ROCES) in 1974. She (1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are
immigrated to the US in 1991 after her marriage Filipinos, as being shown in her physical features
to Theodore Llamanzares who was then based at which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact
the US. Grace Poe then became a naturalized that she was found as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a
American citizen in 2001. municipality wherein there is 99% probability that
residents there are Filipinos, consequently
On December 2004, he returned to the Philippines providing 99% chance that Poe’s bilogical parents
due to his father’s deteriorating medical condition, are Filipinos. Said probability and circumstancial
who then eventually demice on February 3,2005. evidence are admissible under Rule 128, Sec 4 of
She then quitted her job in the US to be with her the Rules on Evidence.
grieving mother and finally went home for good to
the Philippines on MAY 24, 2005. (2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a
class, natural born- citizens as based on the
On JULY 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional
declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino Convention, wherein though its enumeration is silent
citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language
voter and obtained a new Philippine Passport. either to definitely exclude the foundlings to be
natural born citizens.
In 2010, before assuming her post as appointes
Chairperson of the MTRCB , she renounced her (3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred
American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 with the natural-born citizenship as to the country
requirements as to Reacquistion of Filipino where they are being found, as covered and
Citizenship. From then on, she stopped using her supported by the UN Convention Law.
American passport.
As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the
Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny 10-year residency because she satisfied the
or cancel her candidacy on the ground particularly requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to
among others, that she cannot be considered a remain permanently) coupled with ANIMUS NON
natural born Filipino citizen since she was a REVERTENDI (intent of not returning to US) in
FOUNDLING and that her bioligical parents cannot acquiring a new domicile in the Philippines. Starting
be proved as Filipinos. The Comelec en May 24,2005, upon returning to the Philippines,
banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that Grace Poe presented overwhelming evidence of
she is in want of citizenship and residence her actual stay and intent to abandon permanently
requirements and that she committed her domicile in the US, coupled with her eventual
misrepresentation in her COC. application to reacquire Filipino Citizenship under
RA 9225. Hence, her candidacy for Presidency was
granted by the SC.
Gregorio Nuval v. Norberto Guray | GR No L- present quo warranto proceeding, the object is the
30241 | Dec. 29, 1928 expulsion from office.
In Sec. 437 of the Administrative Code, the In view of the facts just related, the question arises
procedure prescribed is summary in character, thus whether or not Norberto Guray had the legal
the judgment rendered therein is unappealable, residence of one year immediately prior to the
EXCEPT when the petition is tried before a justice general elections of June 5, 1928, in order to be
of peace, in which case it may be appealed to a eligible to the office of municipal president of
CFI judge. Luna, Province of La Union.
However, it is not enough to constitute res judicata. It is an established rule that "where a voter
There is no substantial identity of parties, which is a abandons his residence in a state and acquires one
requisite in res judicata. The petition for execution in another state, he cannot again vote in the state
was presented by Nuval in his capacity as a of his former residence until he has qualified by a
qualified voter and as a duly registered new period of residence". "The term 'residence' as
candidate. The quo warranto proceeding, however, so used is synonymous with 'domicile,' which imports
was in Nuval’s capacity as a registered candidate not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but
for the office. also personal presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention." Since Norberto
Furthermore, the subject matters are not Guray abandoned his first residence in the
substantially identical. In the petition for exclusion, municipality of Luna and acquired another in
the object of the litigation was the conclusion of Balaoan, in order to vote and be a candidate in
Guray as a voter from the election list, while in the the municipality of Luna, he needed to reacquire
residence in the latter municipality for the length of
time prescribed by the law, and for such purpose, On February 24, 1931, a petition for
he needed not only the intention to do so, but his appointment of special administrator of the estate
personal presence in said municipality. of the deceased Arthur Graydon Moody was filed
by W. Maxwell. Subsequently or on April 10,
For the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion 1931, a petition was filed by Ida M. Palmer,
and so hold in fact and in law Norberto Guray asking for the probate of said will of the deceased
only abandoned his legal residence in the , and the same was, after hearing, duly probated
Municipality of Balaoan, and began to acquire by the court and it was declared that Ida Palmer is
another in the municipality of Luna from Febraury the sole and only heiress of the deceased Moody.
16, 1928, when he filed his resignation from the
office of municipal treasurer of Balaoan which he However the will does not cover the respective
had been holding, and which resignation was values of said properties for the purpose of the
accepted; and on being elected municipal inheritance tax.the BIR prepared for the estate of
president of Luna in the general elections of June the late Arthur Graydon Moody an inheritance tax
5, 1928, he had not reacquired the legal residence return.
necessary to be validly elected to said office.
The estate of the late Arthur Graydon Moody
[G.R. No. 43314. December 19, 1935.] paid under protest the sum of P50,000 on July 22,
1931, and the other sum of P40,019,75 on
A. L. VELILLA, administrator of the estate of Arthur January 19, 1932, making a total of P90,019,75,
Graydon Moody, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUAN of which P77,018.39 covers the assessment for
POSADAS, JR., Collector of Internal Revenue, inheritance tax and the sum of P13,001.41 covers
Defendant-Appellee. the assessment for income tax against said estate.
The protest was overruled by the BIR.
CFI had jurisdiction over the person of the -because of the expectancy that it may be born,
litigants: residents of Manila, had domicile in the law protects it and reserves its rights, making its
Manila legal existence, if it should be born alive, retroact
THEREFORE: CFI had power and jurisdiction to the moment of its conception
to try actions for divorce. Not divested of
jurisdiction by reason of the subject matter of the
litigation Quita vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 124862, December 22, 1998
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
FACTS:
If this case be decided now in RP: no absolute
divorce: Divorce is considered violation of public Fe Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were
policy. Therefore: courts could no longer try actions married in the Philippines on May 18, 1941 and
for divorce even if brought by nationals whose were not blessed with children. Their relationship
laws allow it soured and eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in
U.S.A and in July 1954, she obtained a
final judgment of divorce. Three weeks after, she
BEGINNING AND END OF PERSONALITY married a certain Felix Tupaz in the same locality
but their relationship also ended in a divorce. Still
in the U.S.A., she married for the third time, to a was subsisting thereby resulting in a bigamous
certain Wernimont. marriage considered void from the beginning
under Arts. 80 and 83 of the Civil
On 16 April 1972 Arturo died and left no will. In Code. Consequently, she is not a surviving spouse
August 1972 Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition that can inherit from him as this status presupposes
with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for a legitimate relationship.
issuance of letters of administration concerning the
estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust The case was remanded to the trial court.
Company. Respondent BlandinaDandan, claiming
to be the surviving spouse of Arturo Padlan, PAULA T. LLORENTE, petitioner, VS. COURT OF
and Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and APPEALS and ALICIA F. LLORENTE,
Yolanda, all surnamed Padlan, named in the respondents
children of Arturo Padlan, opposed the petition November 23, 2000
and prayed for the appointment instead of Atty.
Leonardo Casaba, which was resolved in favor of FACTS:
the latter. Upon motion of the oppositors Lorenzo Llorente and petitioner Paula Llorente
themselves, Atty. Cabasal was later replaced were married in 1937 in the Philippines. Lorenzo
by Higino Castillon. On 30 April 1973 the was an enlisted serviceman of the US Navy. Soon
oppositors submitted certified photocopies of after, he left for the US where through
the 19 July 1950 private writing and the final naturalization, he became a US Citizen. Upon his
judgment of divorce between petitioner visitation of his wife, he discovered that she was
and Arturo. Later Ruperto T. Padlan, claiming to be living with his brother and a child was born. The
the sole surviving brother of the deceased Arturo, child was registered as legitimate but the name of
intervened. the father was left blank. Llorente filed a divorce
in California, which later on became final. He
Petitioner moved for the immediate declaration of married Alicia and they lived together for 25
heirs of the decedent and the distribution of his years bringing 3 children. He made his last will and
estate. At a scheduled hearing, the trial court testament stating that all his properties will be
required the submission of the records of birth of given to his second marriage. He filed a petition of
the Padlan children within ten days from receipt probate that made or appointed Alicia his special
thereof, after which, with or without the documents, administrator of his estate. Before the
the issue on the declaration of heirs would proceeding could be terminated, Lorenzo died.
be considered submitted for resolution. The Paula filed a letter of administration over
prescribed period lapsed without the Llorente’s estate. The trial granted the letter and
required documents being submitted. denied the motion for reconsideration. An appeal
was made to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
ISSUE: and modified the judgment of the Trial Court that
she be declared co-owner of whatever properties,
Who between petitioner and private respondent she and the deceased, may have acquired during
may validly claim as the spouse of the decedent their 25 years of cohabitation.
RULING: ISSUE:
Whether or not the National Law shall apply.
The right of petitioner to inherit as Arturo’s spouse
RULING:
must still be determined by the trial court. The trial
Lorenzo Llorente was already an American citizen
court failed to conduct a hearing to establish her
when he divorced Paula. Such was also the situation
citizenship when she obtained the divorce abroad.
The purpose of a hearing is to ascertain the truth when he married Alicia and executed his will. As
of the matters in issue with the aid of documentary stated in Article 15 of the civil code, aliens may
obtain divorces abroad, provided that they are
and testimonial evidence as well as the arguments
validly required in their National Law. Thus the
of the parties either supporting or opposing the
divorce obtained by Llorente is valid because the
evidence.
law that governs him is not Philippine Law but his
National Law since the divorce was contracted
On the other hand, private respondent’s claim to after he became an American citizen. Furthermore,
heirship was already resolved by the trial court. his National Law allowed divorce.
She and Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 The case was remanded to the court of origin for
while the prior marriage of petitioner and Arturo
determination of the intrinsic validity of Lorenzo Laws relating to family rights or to the status of
Llorente’s will and determination of the parties’ persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
successional rights allowing proof of foreign law. even though living abroad.
He then filed with the trial court a petition for Sy Kiat, a Chinese national, died on January 17,
authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of 1977 in Caloocan City where he was then residing,
Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was leaving behind real and personal properties here
filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted in the Philippines worth P300,000.00 more or less.
the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought Thereafter, Aida Sy-Gonzales, Manuel Sy, Teresita
reconsideration but it was denied. Orbecido filed a Sy-Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition
petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of alleging among others that:
the RTC.
a) They are the children of the deceased with
Issue: Asuncion Gillego;
b) To their knowledge Sy Kiat died intestate;
Whether or not respondent Orbecido can remarry c) They do not recognize Sy Kiat’s marriage to Yao
under Article 26 of the Family Code. Kee nor the filiation of her children to him; and
d) They nominate Aida Sy-Gonzales for
Held: appointment as administratriz of the intestate
estate of the deceased.
Yes. The Court’s unanimous decision in holding
Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code be The petition was opposed by Yao Kee, Sze Sook
interpreted as allowing a Filipino citizen who has Wah, Sze Lai Cho and Sy Yun Chen who alleged
been divorced by a spouse who had acquired a that:
a) Yao Kee is the lawful wife of Sy Kiat who he accordance with the laws in force in the country
married on January 19, 1931 in China; where they were performed, and valid there as
b) The other oppositors are the legitimate children such, shall also be valid in this country, except
of the deceased Yao Kee; and bigamous, polygamous or incestuous marriages as
c) Sze Sook Wah is the eldest among them and is determined by Philippine law.
competent, willing and desirous to become the
administratrix of the estate of Sy Kiat. The testimonies of Yao Kee and Gan Ching cannot
be considered as proof of China’s law or custom on
Yao Kee testified that she was married to Sy Kiat marriage not only because they are self-serving
on January 19, 1931 in Fookien, China; that she evidence, but more importantly, there is no showing
does not have a marriage certificate because the that they are competent to testify on the subject
practice during that time was for elders to agree matter. The marriage of Yao Kee and Sy Kiat
upon the bethrotal of their children, and in her cannot be recognized in this jurisdiction. Philippine
case, her elder brother was the one who contracted courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.
or entered into an agreement with the parents of They must be alleged and proved as any other
her husband; that she and her husband have been fact.
living in Fookien, China before he went to the
Philippines; that in China, the custom is that there is As petitioners failed to establish the marriage of
a go-between, a sort of marriage broker who is Yao Kee with Sy Kiat according to the laws of
known to both parties who would talk to the China, they cannot be accorded the status of
parents of the bride-to-be agree to have the legitimate children but only of acknowledged
groom-to-be their son-in-law, then they agree on a natural children.
date as an engagement day; that on the wedding
day, the document would be signed by the parents
of both parties but there is no solemnizing officer
as is known in the Philippines; that the parties do
not sign the document themselves; and that she and
Sy Kiat were married for 46 years already and
the document was left in China and she doubt if
that document can still be found now.
Issue:
Held: