Cabiling v. Fernandez - 625 SCRA 566

7/19/22, 9:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 625
Note.—Until the foreclosure sale of the property in

question is annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction,
the issuance of a writ of possession remains the ministerial
duty of the trial court. (Bank of the Philippine Islands vs.
Tarampi, 573 SCRA 537 [2008])
——o0o——
G.R. No. 183133. July 26, 2010.*
BALGAMELO CABILING MA, FELIX CABILING MA,

JR., and VALERIANO CABILING MA, petitioners, vs.
COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR.,
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER ARTHEL B.
CARONOÑGAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER JOSE
DL. CABOCHAN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER
TEODORO B. DELARMENTE AND ASSOCIATE
COMMISSIONER FRANKLIN Z. LITTAUA, in their
capacities as Chairman and Members of the Board of
Commissioners (Bureau of Immigration), and MAT G.
CATRAL, respondents.
Constitutional Law; Citizenship and Naturalization;

Statutory Formalities of Electing Philippine Citizenship.—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.
Same; Same; Same; The phrase “reasonable time” has been
interpreted to mean that the elections should be made within three
(3) years from reaching the age of majority.—In Re: Application for
Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, 316 SCRA 1,
12 (1999), we determined the meaning of the period of election
described by phrase “upon reaching the age of majority.” Our
references were the Civil Code of the Philippines, the opinions of
the
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000182169552a78a469a0c000d00d40059004a/p/ARH941/?username=Guest 1/24
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
567
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 567
Ma vs. Fernandez, Jr.
Secretary of Justice, and the case of Cuenco v. Secretary of

Justice, 5 SCRA 108 (1962). We pronounced: x x x [T]he 1935
Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe a time period
within which the election of Philippine citizenship should be
made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election should be
made “upon reaching the age of majority.” The age of majority
then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years. In the
opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the validity
of election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was resolved by
basing the time period on the decisions of this Court prior to the
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions, the proper
period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on
the pronouncements of the Department of State of the United
States Government to the effect that the election should be made
within a reasonable time after attaining the age of majority. The
phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the
elections should be made within three (3) years from reaching the
age of majority. However, we held in Cue[n]co vs. Secretary of
Justice, that the three (3) year period is not an inflexible rule.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—We are not prepared to state that
the mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public official,

continuous and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, 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
568
568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
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.
Same; Same; Same; It is not the registration of the act of
election, although a valid requirement under Commonwealth Act
No. 625, that will confer Philippine citizenship on the petitioners;
Registration is only a means of confirming the fact that citizenship
has been claimed.—Registration, then, is the confirmation of the
existence of a fact. In the instant case, registration is the
confirmation of election as such election. It is not the registration
of the act of election, although a valid requirement under
Commonwealth Act No. 625, that will confer Philippine
citizenship on the petitioners. It is only a means of confirming the
fact that citizenship has been claimed.
Same; Same; Same; 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.—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.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
569
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 569

Hernandez & Surtida Attorneys-at-Law for petitioners.
PEREZ, J.:
Should children born under the 1935 Constitution of a
Filipino mother and an alien father, who executed an
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and took their
oath of allegiance to the government upon reaching the age
of majority, but who failed to immediately file the
documents of election with the nearest civil registry, be
considered foreign nationals subject to deportation as
undocumented aliens for failure to obtain alien certificates
of registration?
Positioned upon the facts of this case, the question is
translated into the inquiry whether or not the omission
negates their rights to Filipino citizenship as children of a
Filipino mother, and erase the years lived and spent as
Filipinos.
The resolution of these questions would significantly
mark a difference in the lives of herein petitioners.
The 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,1 a Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona
Cabiling, a Filipina.2
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.3
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
_______________
1 Deceased. CA Rollo, p. 70.

2 Rollo, p. 18.
3 CA Rollo, pp. 56, 61, and 66.
570

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.4
During their age of minority, they secured from the
Bureau of Immigration their Alien Certificates of
Registration (ACRs).5
Immediately upon reaching the age of twenty-one, they
claimed Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section
1(4), Article IV, of the 1935 Constitution, which provides
that “(t)hose whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship” are citizens of the Philippines. Thus, on 15
August 1969, Felix, Jr. executed his affidavit of election of
Philippine citizenship and took his oath of allegiance before
then Judge Jose L. Gonzalez, Municipal Judge, Surigao,
Surigao del Norte.6 On 14 January 1972, Balgamelo did the
same before Atty. Patrocinio C. Filoteo, Notary Public,
Surigao City, Surigao del Norte.7 In 1978, Valeriano took
his oath of allegiance before then Judge Salvador C. Sering,
City Court of Surigao City, the fact of which the latter
attested to in his Affidavit of 7 March 2005.8
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 on 27 July 2005 or more than
thirty (30)
_______________
4 Rollo, p. 41.
5 CA Rollo, pp. 99-101.
6 Id., at pp. 57-59.
7 Id., at pp. 62-64.

8 Id., at p. 71.
571
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 571

years after they elected Philippine citizenship that

Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so.9 On the other hand, there
is no showing that Valeriano complied with the registration
requirement.
Individual certifications10 all dated 3 January 2005
issued by the Office of the City Election Officer,
Commission on Elections, Surigao City, 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.11
Records further reveal that Lechi Ann and Arceli were
born also in Surigao City in 195312 and 1959,13
respectively. The Office of the City Civil Registrar issued a
Certification to the effect that the documents showing that
Arceli elected Philippine citizenship on 27 January 1986
were registered in its Office on 4 February 1986. However,
no other supporting documents appear to show that Lechi
Ann initially obtained an ACR nor that she subsequently
elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. Likewise, no document exists that will provide
information on the citizenship of Nicolas and Isidro.
The Complaint
On 16 February 2004, the Bureau of Immigration

received the Complaint-Affidavit14 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,
_______________
9 Rollo, pp. 85-86.

10 CA Rollo, pp. 72 and 76.
11 Rollo, p. 220.
12 Id., at p. 226.
13 Id., at p. 119.
14 CA Rollo, back of pp. 37-38.
572

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.15
On 9 November 2004, the Legal Department of the
Bureau of Immigration charged them for violation of
Sections 37(a)(7)16 and 45(e)17 of Commonwealth Act No.
613, otherwise known as the Philippine Immigration Act of
1940, as amended. The Charge Sheet18 docketed as BSI-
D.C. No. AFF-04-574 (OC-STF-04-09/23-1416) reads, in
part:
“That Respondents x x x, all Chinese nationals, failed and

continuously failed to present any valid document to show their
respective status in the Philippines. They likewise failed to
produce documents to show their election of Philippines (sic)
citizenship, hence, undocumented and overstaying foreign
nationals in the country.
_______________
15 Rollo, p. 42.
16 Sec. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the
Commissioner of Immigration or any other officer designated by him for the
purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after
a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for
deportation as charged against the alien:
(1) xxx
xxxx
(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or
condition under which he was admitted as a non-immigrant.
17 Sec. 45. Any individual who:
(a) xxx
xxxx
(e) Being an alien shall, for any fraudulent purpose, represent himself to be a
Philippine citizen in order to evade any requirement of the immigration laws.
18 CA Rollo, pp. 39-40.
573
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 573

That respondents, being aliens, misrepresent themselves as

Philippine citizens in order to evade the requirements of the
immigration laws.
Ruling of the Board of Commissioners,

Bureau of Immigration
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 and 22 August
2001, respectively.19
The Board ruled that since they elected Philippine
citizenship after the enactment of Commonwealth Act No.
625, which was approved on 7 June 1941, they were
governed by the following rules and regulations:
1. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, providing
that the election of Philippine citizenship embodied in a
statement sworn before any officer authorized to
administer oaths and the oath of allegiance shall be filed
with the nearest civil registry;20 and Commission of
Immigration and Deportation (CID, now Bureau of
Immigration [BI]) Circular dated 12 April 1954,21 detailing
the procedural requirements in the registration of the
election of Philippine citizenship.
2. Memorandum Order dated 18 August 195622 of the
CID, requiring the filing of a petition for the cancellation of
their alien certificate of registration with the CID, in view
of their election of Philippine citizenship;
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 29-33.

20 Id., at p. 31.
21 Ronaldo P. Ledesma, An Outline of Philippine Immigration and
Citizenship Laws, 1999, Rex Printing Company, Inc., p. 360.
22 CA Rollo, p. 31.
574

3. Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 182, 19

August 1982; and DOJ Guidelines, 27 March 1985,
requiring that the records of the proceedings be forwarded
to the Ministry (now the Department) of Justice for final
determination and review.23
As regards the documentation of aliens in the
Philippines, Administrative Order No. 1-93 of the Bureau
of Immigration24 requires that ACR, E-series, be issued to
foreign nationals who apply for initial registration, finger
printing and issuance of an ACR in accordance with the
Alien Registration Act of 1950.25 According to public
respondents, any foreign national found in possession of an
ACR other than the E-series shall be considered improperly
documented aliens and may be proceeded against in
accordance with the Immigration Act of 1940 or the Alien
Registration Act of 1950, as amended.26
Supposedly for failure to comply with the procedure to
prove a valid claim to Philippine citizenship via election
proceedings, public respondents concluded that Felix, Jr.
Balgamelo, Arceli, Valeriano and Lechi Ann are
undocumented and/or improperly documented
aliens.27
Nicolas and Isidro, on the other hand, did not submit
any document to support their claim that they are
Philippine citizens. Neither did they present any evidence
to show that they are properly documented aliens. For
these reasons, public respondents likewise deemed them
undocumented and/or improperly documented
aliens.28
_______________
23 Id.
24 Id., at p. 32.
25 The Bureau of Immigration Official Website, www.immigration.

gov.ph.
26 CA Rollo, p. 32.
27 Id.
28 Id.
575
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 575

The dispositive portion29 of the Judgment of 2 February

2005 reads:
1. Subject to the submission of appropriate clearances, summary

deportation of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo
Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma and
Isidro Ma, Taiwanese [Chinese], under C.A. No. 613, Sections
37(a)(7), 45(e) and 38 in relation to BI M.O. Nos. ADD-01-031 and
ADD-01-035 dated 6 and 22 August 2001, respectively;
2. Issuance of a warrant of deportation against Felix (Yao
Kong) Ma, Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann
Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma under C.A. No. 613,
Section 37(a);
3. Inclusion of the names of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, Felix Ma, Jr.,
Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli
Ma and Isidro Ma in the Immigration Blacklist; and
4. Exclusion from the Philippines of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, Felix
Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann Ma, Nicolas Ma,
Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma under C.A. No. 613, Section 29(a)(15).
(Emphasis supplied.)
In its Resolution30 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).31 However, they
denied the Motion for Reconsideration with respect to Felix
Ma and the rest of his children.32
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On 3 May 2005, only Balgamelo, Felix, Jr., and

Valeriano filed the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the 1997
_______________
29 Id., at pp. 32-33.

30 Id., at pp. 34-37.
31 Id., at p. 35.
32 Id.
576

Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals, which

was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 89532. They sought the
nullification of the issuances of the public respondents, to
wit: (1) the Judgment dated 2 February 2005, ordering the
summary deportation of the petitioners, issuance of a
warrant of deportation against them, inclusion of their

names in the Immigration Blacklist, and exclusion of the
petitioners from the Philippines; and (2) the Resolution
dated 8 April 2005, denying the petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration.
On 29 August 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition33 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.”34
On 29 May 2008, it issued a Resolution35 denying the
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 September
2007.
“To reiterate, a person’s continued and uninterrupted stay in

the Philippines, his being a registered voter or an elected public
official cannot vest in him Philippine citizenship as the law
specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of
Philippine citizenship by election. 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. The
constitutional mandate concerning citizenship must be adhered to
strictly. Philippine citizenship can never be treated like a
commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed
when convenient. One who is privileged to elect Philippine
citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. As such,
he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and
promptitude.”36
_______________
33 Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with

Associate Justices Mariano C. del Castillo (now a member of this Court)
and Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, concurring. Rollo, pp. 10-23.
34 Id., at p. 22.
35 Id., at pp. 25-26.
36 Id.
577
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 577

Our Ruling
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 the Philippines:

(1) xxx;
xxxx
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and,
upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.”37
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 the
Philippines.”
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.
In Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar,
Vicente D. Ching,38 we determined the meaning of the
period of election described by phrase “upon reaching the
age of majority.” Our references were the Civil Code of the
Philip-
_______________
37 Section 1(4), Article IV, 1935 Philippine Constitution.

38 374 Phil. 342, 354; 316 SCRA 1, 12 (1999).
578

pines, the opinions of the Secretary of Justice, and the case

of Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice.39 We pronounced:
“x x x [T]he 1935 Constitution and C.A. No. 625 did not prescribe
a time period within which the election of Philippine citizenship
should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election
should be made “upon reaching the age of majority.” The age of
majority then commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) years.40
In the opinions of the Secretary of Justice on cases involving the
validity of election of Philippine citizenship, this dilemma was
resolved by basing the time period on the decisions of this Court
prior to the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. In these decisions,
the proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn,
based on the pronouncements of the Department of State of the
United States Government to the effect that the election should
be made within a reasonable time after attaining the age of
majority.41 The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to
mean that the elections should be made within three (3) years
from reaching the age of majority.42 However, we held in Cue[n]co
vs. Secretary of Justice,43 that the three (3) year period is not an
inflexible rule. We said:
It is true that this clause has been construed to mean a
reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, and that
the Secretary of Justice has ruled that three (3) years is the
reasonable time to elect Philippine citizenship under the
constitutional provision adverted to above, which period
may be extended under certain circumstances, as when the
person concerned has always considered himself a Filipino.
However, we cautioned in Cue[n]co that the extension of the
option to elect Philippine citizenship is not indefinite.
Regardless of the foregoing, petitioner was born on
February 16, 1923. He became of age on February 16, 1944.
His election of citizenship was made on May 15, 1951, when
he was
_______________
39 115 Phil. 90; 5 SCRA 108 (1962).

40 Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, supra
note 38 at p. 350; p. 8, citing Art. 402, Civil Code.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id., citing Cuenco, supra note 39.
579
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 579

over twenty-eight (28) years of age, or over seven (7) years

after he had reached the age of majority. It is clear that said
election has not been made “upon reaching the age of
majority.”44
We reiterated the above ruling in Go, Sr. v. Ramos,45 a

case in which we adopted the findings of the appellate
court that the father of the petitioner, whose citizenship
was in question, failed to elect Philippine citizenship
within the reasonable period of three (3) years upon
reaching the age of majority; and that “the belated
submission to the local civil registry of the affidavit of
election and oath of allegiance x x x was defective because
the affidavit of election was executed after the oath of
allegiance, and the delay of several years before their filing
with the proper office was not satisfactorily explained.”46
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
Mal-
_______________
44 Id.
45 G.R. No. 167569, 4 September 2009, 598 SCRA 266.
46 Id., at p. 280.
580

lare,47 Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of

Representatives,48 and Re: Application for Admission to the
Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching.49
In Mallare, Esteban’s exercise of the right of suffrage
when he came of age was deemed to be a positive act of
election of Philippine citizenship.50 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,51 and that Esteban was born
in 192952 prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and
the enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 625.53
In the Co case, Jose Ong, Jr. did more than exercise his
right of suffrage, as he established his life here in the
Philippines.54 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
him55 as, apparently, while he was still a minor, a
certificate of naturalization was issued to his father.56
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
_______________
47 158 Phil. 50; 59 SCRA 45 (1974).

48 G.R. Nos. 92191-92, 30 July 1991, 199 SCRA 692.
49 Supra note 38.
50 In Re: Florencio Mallare, supra note 47 at p. 58; p. 52.
51 Id., at pp. 57-58.
52 Id., at p. 53.
53 Rollo, p. 20.
54 Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, supra note
48 at p. 708.
55 Id., at p. 709.
56 Id.
581
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 581

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.57
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 on 1 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.”58
We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise of

suffrage, being elected public official, continuous and
uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, 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.
_______________
57 Supra note 38 at p. 354; p. 12.

58 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
582

For what purpose is registration?

In Pascua v. Court of Appeals,59 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.”60 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.61
Simply stated, registration is made for the purpose of
notification.”62
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.”63 As pertinent is the holding that
registration “neither adds to its validity nor converts an
invalid instrument into a valid one between the parties.”64
It lays emphasis on the validity of an unregistered
document.
Comparable jurisprudence may be consulted.
In a contract of partnership, we said that the purpose of
registration is to give notice to third parties; that failure to
register the contract does not affect the liability of the
partnership and of the partners to third persons; and that
neither
_______________
59 401 Phil. 350, 366-367; 348 SCRA 197, 209 (2000).

60 Id. citing Po Sun Tun v. Prize and Provincial Government of Leyte,
54 Phil. 192, 195 (1929).
61 Id.
62 Id. citing Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1989 ed., p.
653 citing Bautista v. Dy Bun Chin, 49 Official Gazette 179, 183 (1952).
63 Id.
64 Id.
583
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 583

does such failure affect the partnership’s juridical

personality.65 An unregistered contract of partnership is
valid as among the partners, so long as it has the essential
requisites, because the main purpose of registration is to
give notice to third parties, and it can be assumed that the
members themselves knew of the contents of their
contract.66 The non-registration of a deed of donation does
not also affect its validity. Registration is not a
requirement for the validity of the contract as between the
parties, for the effect of registration serves chiefly to bind

third persons.67
Likewise relevant is the pronouncement that
registration is not a mode of acquiring a right. In an
analogous case involving an unrecorded deed of sale, we
reiterated the settled rule that registration is not a mode of
acquiring ownership.
“Registration does not confer ownership. It is not a mode of

acquiring dominion, but only a means of confirming the fact of its
existence with notice to the world at large.”68
Registration, then, is the confirmation of the existence of

a fact. In the instant case, registration is the confirmation
of election as such election. It is not the registration of the
act of election, although a valid requirement under
Commonwealth Act No. 625, that will confer Philippine
citizenship on the petitioners. It is only a means of
confirming the fact that citizenship has been claimed.
Indeed, we even allow the late registration of the fact of
birth and of marriage.69 Thus, has it been admitted
through
_______________
65 Angeles v. The Hon. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 142612, 29 July

2005, 465 SCRA 106, 115.
66 Sunga-Chan v. Chua, 415 Phil. 477, 491; 363 SCRA 249, 261 (2001).
67 Gutierrez v. Mendoza-Plaza, G.R. No. 185477, 4 December 2009, 607
SCRA 807, 817.
68 Bollozos v. Yu Tieng Su, 239 Phil. 475, 485; 155 SCRA 506, 517
(1987) citing Bautista v. Dy Bun Chin, supra note 62.
584

existing rules that the late registration of the fact of birth

of a child does not erase the fact of birth. Also, the fact of
marriage cannot be declared void solely because of the
failure to have the marriage certificate registered with the
designated government agency.
Notably, the petitioners timely took their oath of
allegiance to the Philippines. 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.70 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
_______________
69 Delayed Registration—Birth, Death, and Marriage x x x.

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/civilreg/delayedreg_primer.html.
70 Rollo, pp. 21-22.
585
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 585

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,71 upon the effectivity of the
1973 Constitution, they automatically become Filipinos72
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.”73
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 hereof74 shall be deemed natural-born citizens.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
_______________
71 Section 1(4), Article IV, 1935 Philippine Constitution.

72 Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume 1, p. 185.
73 Article IV, 1973 Constitution of the Philippines.
74 Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) x x x;
x x x x
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
586

The constitutional bias is reflected in the deliberations

of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
MR. CONCEPCION. x x x.
xxxx
x x x x As regards those born of Filipino mothers, the 1935
Constitution merely gave them the option to choose
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority,
even, apparently, if the father were an alien or unknown.
Upon the other hand, under the 1973 Constitution, children
of mixed marriages involving an alien father and a Filipino
mother are Filipino citizens, thus liberalizing the
counterpart provision in the 1935 Constitution by
dispensing with the need to make a declaration of intention
upon reaching the age of majority. I understand that the
committee would further liberalize this provision of the
1935 Constitution. The Committee seemingly proposes to

further liberalize the policy of the 1935 Constitution by
making those who became citizens of the Philippines
through a declaration of intention to choose their mother’s
citizenship upon reaching the majority age by declaring that
such children are natural-born citizens of the Philippines.75
x x x x
xxx Why does the draft resolution adopt the provision of the
1973 Constitution and not that of the 1935? 76
xxxx
FR. BERNAS. x x x Precisely, the reason behind the
modification of the 1935 rule on citizenship was a
recognition of the fact that it reflected a certain male
chauvinism, and it was for the purpose of remedying that
this proposed provision was put in. The idea was that we
should not penalize the mother of a child simply because
she fell in love with a foreigner. Now, the question on what
citizenship the child would prefer arises. We really have no
way of guessing the preference of the infant. But if we
recognize the right of the child to choose, then let him
_______________
75 Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume 1, 23 June 1986, p.

202.
76 Id.
587
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 587

choose when he reaches the age of majority. I think dual

citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have
no control of the laws on citizenship of other countries. We
recognize a child of a Filipino mother. But whether or not
she is considered a citizen of another country is something
completely beyond our control. But certainly it is within the
jurisdiction of the Philippine government to require that
[at] a certain point, a child be made to choose. But I do not
think we should penalize the child before he is even able to
choose. I would, therefore, support the retention of the
modification made in 1973 of the male chauvinistic rule of
the 1935 Constitution.77
xxxx
MR. REGALADO. With respect to a child who became a
Filipino citizen by election, which the Committee is now
planning to consider a natural-born citizen, he will be so the
moment he opts for Philippine citizenship. Did the
Committee take into account the fact that at the time of

birth, all he had was just an inchoate right to choose
Philippine citizenship, and yet, by subsequently choosing
Philippine citizenship, it would appear that his choice
retroacted to the date of his birth so much so that under the
Gentleman’s proposed amendment, he would be a natural-
born citizen?78FR. BERNAS. But the difference between
him and the natural-born who lost his status is that the
natural-born who lost his status, lost it voluntarily;
whereas, this individual in the situation contemplated in
Section 1, paragraph 3 never had the chance to choose.79
x x x x
[on the period within which to elect Philippine citizenship]
MR. RODRIGO. [T]his provision becomes very, very
important because his election of Philippine citizenship
makes him not only a Filipino citizen but a natural-born
Filipino citizen,
_______________
77 Id., at p. 203.
78 Id., at p. 206.
79 Id.
588

entitling him to run for Congress, to be a Justice of the

Supreme Court x x x.80
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
in CA-G.R. SP No. 89532 affirming the Judgment dated 2
February 2005, and the Resolution dated 8 April 2005 of
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 Bal-
_______________
80 Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, Volume 1, 25 June

1986, p. 231.
589
VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 589

gamelo Cabiling Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr., and Valeriano

Cabiling Ma. Petitioners are given ninety (90) days from
notice within which to COMPLY with the requirements of
the Bureau of Immigration embodied in its Judgment of 2
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; and ACT thereon in accordance with the
decision of this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Nachura**

and Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.
Judgment and resolution set aside.
Note.—Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 requires that

natural-born citizens of the Philippines, who are already
naturalized citizens of a foreign country, must take the

following oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines to reacquire or retain their Philippine
citizenship. (Jacot vs. Dal, 572 SCRA 295 [2008])
——o0o——
_______________
** Per raffle dated 5 October 2009, Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo
B. Nachura is designated as additional member in place of Associate
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.
© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cabiling v. Fernandez - 625 SCRA 566

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabiling v. Fernandez - 625 SCRA 566

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Cabiling v. Fernandez - 625 SCRA 566

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/19/22, 9:11 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 625

Note.—Until the foreclosure sale of the property in

G.R. No. 183133. July 26, 2010.*

BALGAMELO CABILING MA, FELIX CABILING MA,

Constitutional Law; Citizenship and Naturalization;

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 567

Ma vs. Fernandez, Jr.

Secretary of Justice, and the case of Cuenco v. Secretary of

the mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public official,

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ma vs. Fernandez, Jr.

the constitutional and statutory timeframe, the registration of the

Department of Justice shall be complied with within a reasonable

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 569

Hernandez & Surtida Attorneys-at-Law for petitioners.

Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo), Felix Cabiling Ma,

1 Deceased. CA Rollo, p. 70.

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

education in the country; they do not speak nor understand

7 Id., at pp. 62-64.

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 571

years after they elected Philippine citizenship that

On 16 February 2004, the Bureau of Immigration

9 Rollo, pp. 85-86.

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

however, did not participate in the proceedings, and the Ma

“That Respondents x x x, all Chinese nationals, failed and

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 573

That respondents, being aliens, misrepresent themselves as

Ruling of the Board of Commissioners,

After Felix Ma and his seven (7) children were afforded

19 Id., at pp. 29-33.

574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3. Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 182, 19

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 575

The dispositive portion29 of the Judgment of 2 February

1. Subject to the submission of appropriate clearances, summary

In its Resolution30 of 8 April 2005, public respondents

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 3 May 2005, only Balgamelo, Felix, Jr., and

29 Id., at pp. 32-33.

576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals, which

warrant of deportation against them, inclusion of their

“To reiterate, a person’s continued and uninterrupted stay in

33 Penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga with

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 577

The 1935 Constitution declares as citizens of the

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

In 1941, Commonwealth Act No. 625 was enacted. It laid

“Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in

The statutory formalities of electing Philippine

37 Section 1(4), Article IV, 1935 Philippine Constitution.

578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pines, the opinions of the Secretary of Justice, and the case

39 115 Phil. 90; 5 SCRA 108 (1962).

VOL. 625, JULY 26, 2010 579

over twenty-eight (28) years of age, or over seven (7) years