Renato M. David Vs Editha A. Agbay and People of The Philippines GR No. 199113

Renato M. David vs Editha A.
Agbay and People of the Philippines

GR No. 199113
Facts:
Renato M. David migrated to Canada wherein he became a naturalized Canadian citizen. David
and his wife returned to the Philippines and purchased 600-meter beach lot where they
constructed a residential house. However, in the year 2004, they came to know that property
they purchased is a public lot and part of the salvage zone. David filed a Miscellaneous Lease
Application over the subject land with the DENR at the CENRO in Socorro wherein he indicated
in his application that he is a Filipino Citizen.
Agbay opposed the application on the ground that David, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to
own land. She also filed a complaint for falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the
RPC against David. Meanwhile, David re-acquired his Filipino Citizenship on October 11, 2007.
The CENRO rejected David’s MLA, ruling that petitioner’s subsequent re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab initio.
An information for Falsification of Public Document was also filed before the MTC after the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor found a probable cause to indict David.
Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted tohave been
committed before he had re- acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that
petitioner was at that time still a Canadian citizen.
Petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. The petition was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner may be indicted for falsification for representing himself as a Filipino in
his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under
the provisions of R.A. 9225.
Held:
Yes. R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the "Citizenship Retention and Re- acquisition Act of 2003," was
signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Sections 2 and 3 of said law
read:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.–It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens who
become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of this Act.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.–Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-
born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization
as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking
the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:
"I ______________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of
the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon
myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.
While Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who have become citizens of another country
shall be deemed "not to have lost their Philippine citizenship," such is qualified by the phrase "under the
conditions of this Act." Section 3 lays down such conditions for two categories of natural-born Filipinos
referred to in the first and second paragraphs. Under the first paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos
who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country who shall re-acquire their Philippine
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The second paragraph
covers those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, who shall
retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath. The taking of oath of allegiance is required
for both categories of natural-born Filipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign country, but the
terminology used is different, "re-acquired" for the first group, and "retain" for the second group.
The law thus makes a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens
before and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225. Although the heading of Section 3 is "Retention of Philippine
Citizenship", the authors of the law intentionally employed the terms "re-acquire" and "retain" to describe
the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident from
the title of the law using both re-acquisition and retention.
In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have re-acquired
their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign
country is one of the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. As its title declares, R.A. 9225
amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law which takes away Philippine citizenship
from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual
citizenship,21 and also provides for the procedure for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship. In
the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine
citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the
new law.
Petitioner insists we should not distinguish between re-acquisition and retention in R.A. 9225. He asserts
that in criminal cases, that interpretation of the law which favors the accused is preferred because it is
consistent with the constitutional presumption of innocence, and in this case it becomes more relevant
when a seemingly difficult question of law is expected to have been understood by the accused, who is a
non-lawyer, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. He further cites the letter-reply dated
January 31, 201122 of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to his query, stating that his status as a natural-
born Filipino will be governed by Section 2 of R.A. 9225
xxx
Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225, he
belongs to the first category of natural- born Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost
Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law allows dual citizenship, he was
able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance.
xxx
Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the
time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen. Under CA 63, the
governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization in a foreign country was
among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired
Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the falsification was already a consummated act,
the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned.

Renato M. David Vs Editha A. Agbay and People of The Philippines GR No. 199113

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Renato M. David Vs Editha A. Agbay and People of The Philippines GR No. 199113

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renato M. David vs Editha A.

Agbay and People of the Philippines

You might also like