Chapter Viii- Cases

8/13/2019 Chapter Viii- Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-viii-cases 1/14

CHAPTER VIII- CASES

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF

LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner

FACTS: This BAR matter concerns the petition ofBenjamin M. Dacanay for leave to resume the practiceof law. Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine BAR

in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated toCanada in December 1998 to seek medical attetion forhis ailments.He subsequently applied for Canadiancitizenship to avail of Canada’s citizen in May 2004.



On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act 9225,petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. Onthat day he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino

citizen before the Philippine Consulate General inToronto, Canada. Thereafter he returned to thePhilippines and now intends to resume his lawpractice.

ISSUE: WON petitioner lost his membership in thePhilippine Bar when he gave up his Philippinecitizenship in May 2004.



RULING: By virtue of his reacquisition of Philippinecitizenship in 2006, petitioner has again met all thequalifications and has none of the disqualificationsformembership in the bar. He be allowed to resume thepractice of law in the Philippines, conditioned on hisretaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his dutiesand responsibilities as a member of the Philippine Bar.



CIRILO R. VALLES vs. COMELEC and ROSALIND LOPEZ

FACTS: Petitioner filed a disqualification case againstrespondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, in the May 1998elections for governor of Davao Oriental. RosalindLopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace,Broome, Western Australia to the spouses Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet,Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. In 1949, at the age of 15, she left Australiaand came to settle in the Philippines. On June 1952,she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen.



In 1992, she was elected as governor of Davao Oriental.In1995 she ran for re-election as governor of the sameplace. Her opponent filed a disqualification,questioning her citizenship. In the May 1998 elections,

the citizenship of petitioner was once again raised asan issue.

ISSUE: WON private respondent Rosalind Lopez is aFilipino citizen.



RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that privaterespondent is a Filipino citizen and therefore qualifiedto run for a public office because

1. Her Father is a Filipino citizen and by virtue of the

principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen;2. She was married to a Filipino, thereby making heralso a Filipino citizen; and

3. She renounced her Australian citizenship on January

15,1992.



FELISA LEE vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMMMIGRATION

FACTS: On June 22, 1985 Lee, a Chinese citizen, married Jackson Barra, a Filipino citizen.Claimingto haveacquired the citizenship of her husband by virtue of

her marriage on the ground that she possessed all thequalifications and non of the disqualifications fornaturalization as a Filipino citizen, she applied to theCommissioner of Immigration for cancellation of her

alien certificate of registration. On November 2, 1962the SolGen moved to dismissed the petition on theground that the court had no jurisdiction over thecase.



ISSUE: WON the court has jurisdiction

RULING: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held thatthere is no proceeding established by law or the rulesfor the judicial declaration of the citizenship of anindividual.



IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF

THE PHILIPPINES. OH HEK HOW, petitioner appelle

vs. Republic of the Philippines, oppositor-appellant

FACTS: A decision granting his petition as citizen of thePhilippines having been rendered on January 16, 1964,petitioner Oh Hek How filed on January 17, 1966, amotion alleging that he had complied with therequirements of R.A. No. 530 and praying that he beallowed to take his oath of allegiance as such citizzenand issued the corresponding certificate ofnaturalization. The Government seasonably gavenotice of its intention to appeal from the said order ofFebruary 9, 1966 and filed its record on appeal.



ISSUE: Whether the taking of an oath of petitioner is

valid.

RULING: The oath of allegiance taken by petitioner onNovember 28, 1966 and the certificate of

naturalization issued to him in pursuance thereof, as well as the authority given therefore by the lower courtare null and void. The order of February 9, had not andup to the present has become final and executory in

view of the appeal duly taken by the Government.



EREMES KOOKOORITCHKIN vs. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

FACTS: In August 1941, Eremes kookooritchkin filed with the lower court a petition for naturalization,accompanied with supporting affidavits of twocitizens, copy of a declaration of intention sworn in July 1940. The petition was finally granted on 1947.

ISSUE: WON the declaration of intention to become aFilipino citizen filed by Eremes Kookooritchkin isinvalid and insufficient as a basis for the petition ofnaturalization.



RULING: The undisputed fact that the petitioner hasbeen continuously residing in the Philippines forabout 25 years can be taken as evidence that he isenjoying permanent residence legally. The records

leads to the conclusion that petitioner has shown legalresidence in the Philippines for a continuous period ofnot less than ten years as required by section 2 of C.A.No. 473.



VICTORINO X. FORNIER vs. COMELEC and RONALD ALLAN KELLY

POE, ALSO KNOWN AS FERNANDO POE JR.

FACTS: On December 31, 2003, respondent Ronald AllanKelly Poe, (hereinafter FPJ), filed his certificate ofcandidacy for the position of President of the

Philippines.Petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC todisqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel hiscertificate of candidacy on the grounds that FPJ made

a material misrepresentation in his certificate ofcandidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipinocitizen when in truth , according to Fornier, hisparents were foreigners.



ISSUE: WON FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen.

RULING: The fact of the matter perhaps the mostsignificant consideration is that the 1935 Constitution,the fundamental law prevailing on the day, month and

year of birth of respondent FPJ, can never be moreexplicit than it is. While the totality of the evidencemay not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is anatural born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence

on hand still would preponderate in his favor enoughto hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made amaterial miisrepresentation.

Chapter Viii- Cases

Documents

Transcript of Chapter Viii- Cases