B.M. No. 914 - Re: Vicente D. Ching

Case Summary (B.M. No. 914)

Factual Background

Vicente D. Ching was born in Francia West, Tubao, La Union on 11 April 1964. He is the legitimate son of Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino. He resided continuously in the Philippines since birth. He completed a Bachelor of Laws at St. Louis University, Baguio City, and previously obtained certification as a certified public accountant by the Board of Accountancy on 9 June 1986. He was registered as a voter in Tubao, La Union as shown by a COMELEC certification dated 14 June 1997, and a COMELEC certification dated 12 October 1998 showed that he had been elected a member of the Sangguniang Bayan in the May 12, 1992 synchronized elections.

Trial and Bar-Admission Proceedings

Vicente D. Ching filed his application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations on 17 July 1998. This Court conditionally allowed him to take the examinations, subject to proof of Philippine citizenship. He submitted his initial documentary proofs on 18 November 1998. After the 1998 Bar results were released on 5 April 1999, he was among the successful examinees but was not permitted to take the oath for admission on 5 May 1999 because his citizenship remained in question. The Court issued a resolution on 20 April 1999 requiring him to submit further proof and directing the Office of the Solicitor General to file a comment.

Documents and Subsequent Filings

In response to the Court’s directives, Vicente D. Ching filed a Manifestation dated 27 July 1999 attaching an Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship and an Oath of Allegiance, both dated 15 July 1999. His Manifestation averred continuous identification as Filipino, performance of acts reserved to citizens including practicing as a certified public accountant, participation in elections, prior service as an elected local official, filing of his sworn statement and oath with the Civil Registrar of Tubao, and payment of a filing fee of Ten Pesos.

Question Presented

The principal legal question was whether a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an alien father may validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen years after he reached the age of majority, and if such election, if valid, retroacts to the time he took the bar examination.

Position of the Office of the Solicitor General

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that under the 1935 Constitution a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and alien father took the father’s citizenship and had only an inchoate right to Philippine citizenship that could be perfected by election “upon reaching the age of majority.” The OSG relied on Commonwealth Act No. 625 for the procedure of election and on precedents construing “upon reaching the age of majority” to mean a reasonable period after attaining majority—generally three years, subject to extension in exceptional circumstances. The OSG concluded that Ching had not formally elected citizenship within a reasonable time but recommended relaxing the standing rule to allow him to elect prior to taking his oath, because of his peculiar circumstances.

Statutory and Constitutional Framework

Under Section 1, Article IV, 1935 Constitution, those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines may, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. Commonwealth Act No. 625 prescribes the formal procedure: a signed and sworn statement expressing intention to elect filed with the nearest civil registry and accompanied by an oath of allegiance. The age of majority under the 1935 legal regime was twenty-one. The 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution recognized prior elections made pursuant to the 1935 Constitution but did not cure irregularities that had already been subject to challenge under the older charter.

Governing Precedent on Time for Election

This Court’s and departmental precedents interpreted “upon reaching the age of majority” to require election within a reasonable time after attaining majority. Administrative opinions and earlier decisions commonly fixed three years as the reasonable period, while recognizing that extensions may be warranted when a person has always considered himself Filipino. The Court in Cuenco v. Secretary of Justice, 5 SCRA 108 (1962), held that an election made more than seven years after reaching majority was not within a reasonable time, thereby limiting indefinite extensions.

Application of Law to the Present Case

The Court observed that Vicente D. Ching attained majority at twenty-one and that fourteen years lapsed before he executed the formal affidavit and oath required by C.A. No. 625. The Court rejected the contention that continuous residence, voter registration, professional practice, and prior elective service constituted an informal or constructive election under the rule applicable to persons who were already Filipino when majority arrived. The Court distinguished In re: Florencio Mallare, 59 SCRA 45 (1974), and Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, 199 SCRA 692 (1991), because those cases involved persons whose status was already, or clearly, Filipino when majority arrived and who therefore could manifest election through acts such as voting or entering professions reserved to citizens. By contrast, a person whose status under the 1935 Constitution required a formal election must comply with the explicit statutory procedure.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that the right to elect Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution is inchoate until it is formally exercised in conformity with C.A. No. 625. The phrase “upon reaching the age of majority” was construed against indefinite delay. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for Ching’s fourteen-year delay in making the formal election. It held that the special circumstances asserted by Ching did not supply a legal substitute for the statu

Case Syllabus (B.M. No. 914)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Vicente D. Ching was the applicant for admission to the Philippine Bar who was born on 11 April 1964 as the legitimate son of Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, and who had resided in the Philippines since birth.
Vicente D. Ching filed his application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations on 17 July 1998 after completing a Bachelor of Laws at St. Louis University in Baguio City.
This Court in a September 1998 resolution permitted Vicente D. Ching to sit for the 1998 Bar Examinations subject to proof of Philippine citizenship.
On 18 November 1998, Vicente D. Ching submitted a CPA certification dated 9 June 1986, a COMELEC voter certification dated 14 June 1997, and a certification dated 12 October 1998 showing his election as Sangguniang Bayan member in 1992.
The results of the 1998 Bar Examinations were released on 5 April 1999 and Vicente D. Ching was among the successful examinees.
The oath-taking scheduled for 5 May 1999 was deferred for Vicente D. Ching because of doubts concerning his citizenship, and the Court required further proof and directed the Office of the Solicitor General to comment in a resolution dated 20 April 1999.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its comment on 8 July 1999 contending that Vicente D. Ching was a Chinese citizen by operation of the 1935 Constitution and, at best, had only an inchoate Philippine citizenship that had to be perfected by election under Commonwealth Act No. 625.
Vicente D. Ching filed a Manifestation on 27 July 1999 attaching an Affidavit of Election of Philippine Citizenship and an Oath of Allegiance both dated 15 July 1999 and asserting that he had elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 625.

Key Factual Allegations

Vicente D. Ching alleged that he had always considered himself a Filipino and had consistently declared himself as such in school records and official documents.
Vicente D. Ching alleged that he had been registered as a voter, practiced as a Certified Public Accountant, and served as an elected member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union from 1992 to 1995.
Vicente D. Ching alleged that he filed his election of Philippine citizenship and oath of allegiance with the Civil Registrar of Tubao, La Union on 15 July 1999 and paid a filing fee of TEN PESOS (Ps 10.00).
Vicente D. Ching offered no explanation for the fourteen-year lapse between reaching the age of majority and his declaration of election of Philippine citizenship.

Statutory Framework

Article IV, Sec. 1(4), 1935 Constitution provided that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father unless the child, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship.
Commonwealth Act No. 625 mandated that a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother may elect Philippine citizenship by a statement signed and sworn to before an officer authorized to administer oaths, filed with the nearest civil registry, and accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the Philippines.
The age of majority under the law then was twenty-one years and neither the 1935 Constitution nor Commonwealth Act No. 625 fixed a specific time frame within which the election must be made beyond the phrase "upon reaching the age of majority."
The 1973 Constitution and the 1987 Constitution recognized those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, but the recognition did not cure defects in citizenship acquisition under the old charter.

Issues Presented

Whether a legitimate child born under the 1935 Constitution to a Filipino mother and an alien father may validly elect Philippine citizenship fourteen years after reaching the age of majority.
Whether an election of Philippine citizenship made after such lapse, if valid, retroacted to confer citizenship at the time Vicente D. Ching took the Bar Examinations.

Contentions of the Parties

The OSG contended that Vicente D. Ching remained a Chinese citizen unless he elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority in