Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    David v. Agbay

    Uploaded by

    Lulu Rodriguez
    This case involves a petitioner who was charged with falsification for stating he was a Filipino citizen in a land application, when he was actually a naturalized Canadian citizen at the time of application. While the petitioner later re-acquired Philippine citizenship under a new law allowing dual citizenship, the Court found he was correctly charged as the new law did not apply retroactively. The Court ruled the petitioner made a false statement in a public document by claiming Filipino citizenship when he was still a Canadian, and denied the petition challenging the falsification charge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    David v. Agbay

    Uploaded by

    Lulu Rodriguez
    19 views3 pages
    This case involves a petitioner who was charged with falsification for stating he was a Filipino citizen in a land application, when he was actually a naturalized Canadian citizen at the time of application. While the petitioner later re-acquired Philippine citizenship under a new law allowing dual citizenship, the Court found he was correctly charged as the new law did not apply retroactively. The Court ruled the petitioner made a false statement in a public document by claiming Filipino citizenship when he was still a Canadian, and denied the petition challenging the falsification charge.

    Original Title

    20. DAVID V. AGBAY.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petitioner who was charged with falsification for stating he was a Filipino citizen in a land application, when he was actually a naturalized Canadian citizen at the time of application. While the petitioner later re-acquired Philippine citizenship under a new law allowing dual citizenship, the Court found he was correctly charged as the new law did not apply retroactively. The Court ruled the petitioner made a false statement in a public document by claiming Filipino citizenship when he was still a Canadian, and denied the petition challenging the falsification charge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views3 pages

    David v. Agbay

    Uploaded by

    Lulu Rodriguez
    This case involves a petitioner who was charged with falsification for stating he was a Filipino citizen in a land application, when he was actually a naturalized Canadian citizen at the time of application. While the petitioner later re-acquired Philippine citizenship under a new law allowing dual citizenship, the Court found he was correctly charged as the new law did not apply retroactively. The Court ruled the petitioner made a false statement in a public document by claiming Filipino citizenship when he was still a Canadian, and denied the petition challenging the falsification charge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    RENATO M. DAVID V. EDITHA A.

    AGBAY, et al,
    GR No. 199113
    March 18, 2015

    FACTS:
     Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by
    naturalization. Upon retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the
    Philippines and purchased a lot along the beach in Oriental Mindoro
    where they constructed a residential house. However, the portion
    where they built their house is public land and part of the salvage
    zone.

     Petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over the


    subject land with the DENR. In the said application, petitioner
    indicated that he is a Filipino citizen.

     Private respondent Editha Agbay opposed the application on the


    ground that petitioner, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land.
    She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents
    under Article 172 of the RPC against the petitioner.

     Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the


    provisions of Republic Act No. 9225.

     The CENRO rejected petitioner’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 filed before the


    MTC and a warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.

     Since the crime for which petitioner was charged was alleged and
    admitted to have 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.

    RULING:

    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.

    For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time


    of filing his MLA, it is not necessary to discuss the rulings
    in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such reacquisition because
    R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost Philippine
    citizenship, in contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became
    foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 came into force. In other words, Section 2
    declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens as
    not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with
    Section 3, the second paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs
    all cases after the new law’s effectivity.

    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. The MTC
    therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of public
    document under Article 172, paragraph 1. WHEREFORE, the petition
    is DENIED.

    You might also like