Facts:

The case involves Balgamelo Cabiling Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr., and Valeriano Cabiling Ma (petitioners) against Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr., and other members of the Bureau of Immigration (respondents). The events leading to the case began with the birth of the petitioners under the 1935 Philippine Constitution to a Filipino mother, Dolores Sillona Cabiling, and a Taiwanese father, Felix (Yao Kong) Ma. The petitioners were born in the years 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively, and have lived in the Philippines for nearly sixty years, receiving their education and raising families there. They do not speak Chinese, have never visited Taiwan, and have no known relatives in that country. Upon reaching the age of majority, they executed affidavits of election of Philippine citizenship and took oaths of allegiance, but failed to register these documents with the civil registry as mandated by Commonwealth Act No. 625. The registration was only completed in 2005, over thirt...

Facts:

Family Background

• Petitioners Balgamelo Cabiling Ma, Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr., and Valeriano Cabiling Ma are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a Taiwanese national, and Dolores Sillona Cabiling, a Filipina.
• They were born under the 1935 Philippine Constitution in 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively.
• They have resided in the Philippines for almost 60 years, were educated in the country, and have never traveled abroad or known their father’s relatives in Taiwan.

Election of Philippine Citizenship

• Upon reaching the age of majority, petitioners elected Philippine citizenship under Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, which allows children of Filipino mothers to elect Philippine citizenship.
• Felix, Jr. executed his affidavit of election and oath of allegiance on 15 August 1969, Balgamelo on 14 January 1972, and Valeriano in 1978.
• However, they failed to immediately register these documents with the nearest civil registry as required by Commonwealth Act No. 625. Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. registered their documents only in 2005, while Valeriano’s registration status remains unclear.

Complaint and Charges

• On 16 February 2004, Mat G. Catral filed a complaint with the Bureau of Immigration (BI), alleging that Felix Ma and his children were undesirable and overstaying aliens.
• The BI charged them with violations of Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, claiming they were undocumented and improperly documented aliens.

Ruling of the Board of Commissioners

• The BI Board of Commissioners ruled on 2 February 2005 that petitioners violated immigration laws due to their failure to comply with the procedural requirements for electing Philippine citizenship.
• The Board ordered their summary deportation, inclusion in the Immigration Blacklist, and exclusion from the Philippines.

Court of Appeals Decision

• The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners’ appeal on 29 August 2007, ruling that they failed to comply with the legal requirements for electing Philippine citizenship.
• The court emphasized that the exercise of suffrage, being elected public officials, and continuous stay in the Philippines could not substitute for the formal election of citizenship.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Election of Citizenship Under the 1935 Constitution: The 1935 Constitution allows children of Filipino mothers to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. The election must be accompanied by an oath of allegiance and registration with the civil registry.
2. Purpose of Registration: Registration is not a mode of acquiring citizenship but a means of confirming the fact of election and giving notice to third parties. Actual knowledge of the election, demonstrated through public acts, can serve as constructive registration.
3. Liberal Interpretation of Citizenship Laws: The Court adopted a liberal interpretation of citizenship laws, recognizing the petitioners’ long-standing exercise of Philippine citizenship through their public acts, such as voting and holding public office.
4. Evolution of Citizenship Provisions: The Court noted the evolution of citizenship provisions from the 1935 to the 1987 Constitution, which reflects a bias towards recognizing the citizenship of children of Filipino mothers. The 1987 Constitution classifies such children as natural-born citizens upon election of Philippine citizenship.
5. Belated Compliance with Registration: The Court ruled that the belated registration of the documents of election does not defeat the petitioners’ right to Philippine citizenship, especially when they have consistently acted as Filipino citizens for decades.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the petitioners’ failure to immediately register their election of Philippine citizenship did not negate their right to citizenship, given their long-standing and public exercise of Filipino citizenship. The Court allowed them to complete the registration process and comply with the Bureau of Immigration’s requirements, ensuring their continued recognition as Filipino citizens.