199 SCRA 692

CO VS HRET

Joan b castillo

FACTS:

On 1895, the private respondent's grandfather, Ong Te , arrived in the Philippines from
China. Ong Te established his residence in the municipality of Laoang, Samar on land which he
bought from the fruits of hard work. As a resident of Laoang , Ong Te was able to obtain a
certificate of residence from the then Spanish colonial administration. The father of the private
respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in China in 1905. He was brought by Ong Te to Samar in
the year 1915. In the meantime, the father of the private respondent, unsure of his legal status
and in an unequivocal affirmation of where he cast his life and family, filed with the Court of First
Instance of Samar an application for naturalization on February 15, 1954.On April 28, 1955, the
CFI of Samar, after trial, declared Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen .On May 15, 1957, the Court
of First Instance of Samar issued an order declaring the decision of April 28, 1955 as final and
executory and that Jose Ong Chuan may already take his Oath of Allegiance. Pursuant to said
order, Jose Ong Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance; correspondingly, a certificate of naturalization
was issued to him. At the time Jose Ong Chuan took his oath, the private respondent then a minor
of nine years was finishing his elementary education in the province of Samar. There is nothing
in the records to differentiate him from other Filipinos insofar as the customs and practices of the
local populace were concerned .After completing his elementary education, the private
respondent, in search for better education, . Later, however, he worked in the hardware business
of his family in Manila. In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was elected as a delegate to the 1971
Constitutional Convention. His status as a natural born citizen was challenged. Parenthetically,
the Convention which in drafting the Constitution removed the unequal treatment given to derived
citizenship on the basis of the mother's citizenship formally and solemnly declared Emil Ong,
respondent's full brother, as a natural born Filipino. The Constitutional Convention had to be
aware of the meaning of natural born citizenship since it was precisely amending the article on
this subject .

In 1984 .For the elections of 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered himself as a
voter of Laoang, Samar, and correspondingly, voted there during those elections .The private
respondent after being engaged for several years in the management of their family business
decided to be of greater service to his province and ran for public office. Hence, when the
opportunity came in 1987, he ran in the elections for representative in the second district of
Northern Samar. Mr. Ong was overwhelmingly voted by the people of Northern Samar as their
representative in Congress. Even if the total votes of the two petitioners are combined, Ong would
still lead the two by more than 7,000 votes. The petitioners come to this Court asking for the
setting aside and reversal of a decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
(HRET).The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a
resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for voting purposes. On May 11, 1987, the congressional
election for the second district of Northern Samar was held.Among the candidates who vied for
the position of representative in the second legislative district of Northern Samar are the
petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent
Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar. The
petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent premised on the following
grounds :That Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and Jose Ong, Jr. is
not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar. The HRET in its decision dated November
6, 1989, found for the private respondent.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners on November 12, 1989. This
was, however, denied by the HRET in its resolution dated February 22, 1989.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, in making that determination, the HRET acted with grave abuse of
discretion. The issue before us is not the nullification of the grant of citizenship to Jose Ong
Chuan. Our function is to determine whether or not the HRET committed abuse of authority in the
exercise of its powers. Moreover, the respondent traces his natural born citizenship through
his mother, not through the citizenship of his father. The citizenship of the father is relevant only
to determine whether or not the respondent "chose" to be a Filipino when he came of age. At that
time and up to the present, both mother and father were Filipinos. Respondent Ong could not
have elected any other citizenship unless he first formally renounced Philippine citizenship in
favor of a foreign nationality. Unlike other persons faced with a problem of election, there was no
foreign nationality of his father which he could possibly have chosen.

HELD:

It would appear from the foregoing discussion that the naturalization of Jose Ong Chuan
(private respondent's father) was null and void. It follows that the private respondent did not
acquire any legal rights from the void naturalization of his father and thus he cannot himself be
considered a Filipino citizen, more so, a natural-born Filipino citizen and therefore NOT
QUALIFIED to be a Member of the House of Representatives, Congress of the Philippines.
Other digested case from scrib
CO vs. HRETFacts:

The HRET declared that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino
citizen and a resident of Laoang , Northern Samar for voting purposes. The
congressional election for the second district of Northern Samar was held.
Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the
second legislative district are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co and
the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected
representative of the second district of Northern Samar. The petitioners filed election
protests on the grounds that Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of
thePhilippines and not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.
Issue:

Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is a citizen of the Philippines.

Yes. In the year 1895, the private respondent’s grandfather, Ong Te, arrived
in the Philippines fromChina and established his residence in the municipality
of Laoang, Samar. The father of the private respondent, Jose Ong Chuan was born in
China in 1905 but was brought by Ong Te to Samar in the year 1915, he filed withthe
court an application for naturalization and was declared a Filipino citizen.In 1984, the
private respondent married a Filipina named Desiree Lim. For the elections of 1984
and1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered himself as a voter of Laoang, Samar, and voted there
during those elections.Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and
those born of Filipino mothers with analien father were placed on equal footing. They
were both considered as natural born citizens. Besides,
privater e s p o n d e n t d i d m o r e t h a n m e r e l y e x e r c i s e h i s r i g h t o f s u f f r a g e .
H e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d h i s l i f e h e r e i n t h e Philippines.On the issue of residence,
it is not required that a person should have a house in order to establish hisresidence
and domicile. It is enough that he should live in the municipality or in a rented house or
in that of afriend or relative. To require him to own property in order to be eligible to run for Congress
would be tantamountto a property qualification. The Constitution only requires that the
candidate meet the age, citizenship, votingand residence requirements.

90
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
ManilaEN BANC
G.R. No. L-23116 January 24, 1968

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANTONIO JAO

MAKALINTAL,
J.:
The Solicitor General has appealed from the decision of the Court ofFirst Instance of
Cebu granting appellee's petition for naturalization (CaseNo. 753). The case was submitted
without appellee's brief in reply to that ofappellant.Petitioner, a citizen of the Republic of
Nationalist China, was born ofChinese parents in Binondo, Manila, on December 7, 1921, and
baptized inthe Chinese Church of Binondo under the name of Antonio Jao Teck Chuan.He took his primary
course in De La Salle College of Manila and hissecondary and collegiate courses in the Far Eastern
University where heobtained his degree of Bachelor of Science in Commerce. On April
28, 1951he married Susan Ng Siok Kun, also a Chinese citizen, with whom he hasfour children, to wit:
Andrew, Alexander, Margaret and Melanie, the first twobeing enrolled at the De La Salle
College and the other two at St.Scholastica College, both in Manila. Since 1956 petitioner and
his wife havebeen residing in Cebu, where he is employed as salesman in the IgnacioLeyson
Brokerage, as a solicitor in the office of Santiago Go, CommercialBroker, and in the Lianga Bay
Logging Company, Inc., with a monthly salaryof P550.00, P500.00 and P75.00, respectively, or
a total of P1,125.00. Twowitnesses Honorato Suson and Facundo O. Perez, vouched for his
goodmoral character.The issue to be resolved is whether or not petitioner has
satisfactorilyshown that he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
fornaturalization.The first objection raised by the Solicitor General is that althoughaccording to
petitioner he was known in school as Anthony Jao he wasnever officially registered under this
name, nor was it included in thepublication of the notice of his petition. We do not consider this
objection ofsufficient importance, since petitioner was baptized Antonio Jao TeckChuan, and
this is the name given in his petition as well as in the publishednotices thereof.The Solicitor
General next draws attention to the evidence ofpetitioner's good moral character and conduct. It
is a well settled rule that theevidence on this point must embrace the entire period of
the applicant'sresidence in the Philippines (Lim vs. Republic, L-22437, June 21, 1966;Republic
vs. Hon. Andres Reyes, L-20602, December 24, 1965; Vy Tianalias Si Un vs. Republic, L-
19918, July 30, 1965). The two characterwitnesses in this case testified that they first came to
know the petitioner in1946, when he was already 25 years old, and even then used to meet
himonly occasionally, until he transferred to Cebu in 1956. Consequently theyare not in
a position to vouch for petitioner's irreproachable conduct for theentire period required by law
(Ng vs. Republic, L-21179, January 22, 1966;King vs. Republic, L-19082, September 29, 1966),
especially while he wasstaying in Manila and for a time in San Juan, Rizal.The notice of the
petition for naturalization was published in "LaPrensa" a newspaper of general circulation in the
province of Cebu. There isno showing that the said newspaper was also of general circulation in
Manilaand San Juan, Rizal, where petitioner, as heretofore stated, spent thegreater part of
his youth. The purpose of the law in requiring publication ofthe notice of the petition is to apprise
the public in general that petitioner hasapplied for citizenship, so that persons who know him or
otherwise may havederogatory information about him may bring the same to the attention of
thecorresponding authorities. For the acquisition of citizenship by naturalizationis of public
interest, involving as it does the conferment of political andeconomic rights
and privileges.WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is set aside and thepetition is
dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of another application bypetitioner. No pronouncement
as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,Castro, Angeles and
Fernando, JJ., concur

JAO VS.REPUBLIC, digestedPosted by Pius