Title
Supreme Court
David vs. Agbay
Case
G.R. No. 199113
Decision Date
Mar 18, 2015
A Canadian-turned-Filipino citizen falsely claimed Filipino status in a land lease application; re-acquisition of citizenship under RA 9225 did not retroactively cure falsification.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199113)

Factual Background

In 2000, petitioner and his wife purchased and built a house on a 600-sqm beachfront lot in Gloria, Oriental Mindoro, later identified as public land. On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with DENR/CENRO, declaring he was a Filipino citizen. Private respondent Agbay opposed on the ground that petitioner, as a Canadian citizen, was disqualified from owning land, and filed a complaint for falsification of public documents. On October 11, 2007, petitioner took the oath under RA 9225 and re-acquired Philippine citizenship.

Administrative and Pretrial Proceedings

• January 8, 2008: Provincial Prosecutor finds probable cause to indict.
• June 3, 2008: CENRO rejects MLA as void ab initio; post-application reacquisition of citizenship does not cure the defect.
• July 26, 2010: DOJ denies petitioner’s petition for review.
• 2012: Information for falsification filed in MTC Socorro; arrest warrant issued.

MTC and RTC Rulings on Probable Cause

On February 11, 2011, petitioner moved for redetermination of probable cause before arrest. The MTC denied the motion on March 22, 2011, holding that at the time of the MLA (April 2007) petitioner was still a Canadian citizen under CA 63 and RA 9225’s distinction between “reacquisition” (for those naturalized before effectivity) and “retention” (after effectivity). The MTC also cited lack of jurisdiction over petitioner’s person. The RTC denied petitioner’s certiorari petition on October 8, 2011, finding no grave abuse of discretion and noting that citizenship issues could be raised at trial.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioner may be indicted for falsification under RPC Art. 172 for representing himself as a Filipino in his MLA despite subsequent re-acquisition under RA 9225.
  2. Whether the MTC properly denied the motion for redetermination of probable cause for lack of jurisdiction over petitioner’s person.

Applicable Law and Jurisprudence

• 1987 Constitution – citizenship and land ownership requirements.
• RA 9225, Sections 2–3 – declares policy deeming Philippine citizenship not lost “under the conditions of this Act” and distinguishes “re-acquisition” (pre-effectivity naturalization) from “retention” (post-effectivity foreign naturalization).
• CA 63 – provided that naturalization abroad causes loss of Philippine citizenship.
• RPC Arts. 171–172 – elements of falsification of public documents.
• Frivaldo v. COMELEC; Altarejos v. COMELEC – on retroactivity of reacquisition.
• Miranda v. Tuliao; Santiago v. Vasquez – on jurisdiction over the person and custody of the law.

Court’s Analysis on Citizenship

RA 9225’s Section 3(a) applies to those naturalized abroad before August 29, 2003, deeming them to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship only upon taking the oath. Petitioner, naturalized in 1974, falls in this ca

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.