Title
Walter Manuel F. Prescott vs. Bureau of Immigration, as represented by Hon. Rogelio D. Gevero, Jr. and the Department of Justice
Case
G.R. No. 262938
Decision Date
Dec 5, 2023
Walter Prescott, born to a Filipino mother and American father, reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 after naturalizing in the U.S. The Bureau of Immigration and DOJ unlawfully canceled his citizenship and ordered deportation. The Court ruled him a natural-born Filipino, invalidating the deportation and affirming his citizenship rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262938)

Petitioner

Walter Manuel F. Prescott — facts admitted and undisputed: lifelong residence and education in the Philippines, ACR issued January 12, 1951; notified by U.S. Embassy in 1977 that he lost U.S. citizenship in 1976; worked in the U.S. (World Bank), naturalized as U.S. citizen in 2006; applied for and was granted reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 on November 26, 2008, took Oath of Allegiance, was issued Philippine identification certificate and passport, then returned to the Philippines to retire.

Respondents

Bureau of Immigration (implemented Administrative Order No. 91 and BI rules); Department of Justice (approved recommendation to cancel petitioner’s reacquisition of citizenship by DOJ Resolution dated November 28, 2013); complainants whose letter initiated the BI investigation: Maria Lourdes S. Dingcong (ex‑wife) and Jesse Troutman.

Key Dates

Birth: April 10, 1950. ACR issued: January 12, 1951. Loss of U.S. citizenship notified: 1977 (effective 1976). Naturalization in U.S.: August 5, 2006. Reacquisition under RA 9225 and Oath: November 26, 2008. DOJ Resolution revoking reacquisition: November 28, 2013. BI deportation resolution: March 29, 2016; warrant and arrest: August 22–25, 2016. Habeas corpus and declaratory relief filed: March 2019. Supreme Court decision: December 5, 2023.

Applicable Law and Authorities

1987 Constitution (applies because decision date is post‑1990); Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003); Administrative Order No. 91 (designating BI as implementing agency of RA 9225); BI Memorandum Circulars implementing RA 9225; Commonwealth Act No. 625 (formal election procedure under the 1935 Constitution); administrative‑due‑process principles (Ang Tibay, Fontanilla); international law: 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (Philippines acceded in 2022).

Undisputed Factual Background

Prescott was born in the Philippines to an American father and Filipino mother, received an ACR in infancy, never departed the Philippines until 1982, married a U.S. citizen in 1981 and identified his nationality as Filipino in civil records, later worked in the U.S., became a U.S. naturalized citizen in 2006, applied for and received reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in 2008 (took Oath of Allegiance, issued Philippine passport), then retired to reside in the Philippines. A complaint in 2012 alleged unlawful reacquisition; BI hearings notices were returned unserved; DOJ revoked the 2008 reacquisition in 2013; deportation proceedings and an arrest followed; Prescott alleges he never received notices nor the DOJ revocation and that administrative proceedings denied him the opportunity to be heard.

Administrative Proceedings before BI and DOJ

Under Administrative Order No. 91 and the BI’s implementing rules for RA 9225, the BI conducts inquiries and the DOJ may revoke an Order of Approval for reacquisition upon a substantive finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment following an administrative hearing. BI proceedings were conducted after the 2012 complaint and resulted in a DOJ Resolution (Nov. 28, 2013) revoking Prescott’s reacquisition; BI later issued a deportation resolution and warrant (2016). The record shows notices for BI hearings were returned unserved (comments like “moved out”), and Prescott did not receive the DOJ Resolution until passport renewal denial in 2014; Prescott filed motions for reconsideration and other pleadings, but he was never provided the case records and the administrative findings were not made against a party who had a real opportunity to be heard on the merits.

Procedural History in the Courts

Prescott filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Petition for Habeas Corpus in the RTC Manila (2019). The RTC initially denied habeas corpus but later ordered respondents to implement the deportation order within 30 days or release Prescott. Prescott appealed; the Court of Appeals (CA) denied the appeal (Decision June 25, 2021), sustained the deportation order, and ordered the PAO to turn over custody to BI/DOJ for deportation; CA denied reconsideration (Aug. 15, 2022). Prescott filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the 2012 complaint and resulting proceedings were a collateral or direct attack on Prescott’s citizenship.
  2. Whether BI proceedings and the DOJ Resolution (Nov. 28, 2013) are void for lack of due process.
  3. Whether declaratory relief and/or habeas corpus were proper remedies.
  4. Whether Prescott, born in 1950 to an American father and Filipino mother, is a natural‑born Filipino and therefore eligible to reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.
  5. Whether Prescott may be released from detention.

Jurisdictional and Procedural Threshold—Law vs. Fact

The Court emphasized Rule 45 limitation to questions of law only, but found this petition presents legal questions based on undisputed facts. Because both sides rely on the same factual record and differ on legal conclusions (citizenship and the effect of administrative procedure/due process), the Supreme Court took cognizance and addressed the legal issues.

Direct v. Collateral Attack on Citizenship and Applicable Procedure

The Court held the BI/DOJ actions here were a direct attack on Prescott’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship because the complaint and resulting proceedings directly sought revocation of the 2008 Order approving reacquisition. The appropriate legal framework governing rescission of a reacquisition under RA 9225 is the statute and its implementing rules (Administrative Order No. 91 and BI Memorandum Circulars), not Commonwealth Act No. 473 provisions applicable to naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under RA 9225 and its rules, the BI conducts administrative hearings and the DOJ may revoke an approval upon substantive finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment after a proper administrative process.

Administrative Due Process: Requirements and Violation

Administrative due process requires meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard; Ang Tibay criteria were applied (opportunity to present case and evidence, tribunal consideration of evidence, substantial evidence support, reasons stated). The Court found a palpable due process violation: notices for BI hearings were returned unserved, Prescott never received the DOJ Resolution, he was never furnished the case records despite explicit requests, and neither BI nor DOJ adequately considered his defenses. The Court reiterated that mere filing of motions for reconsideration does not cure a lack of an initial meaningful opportunity to be heard; where the initial hearing on the merits never occurred, reconsideration is no substitute for due process. Accordingly, the BI proceedings and the DOJ Resolution dated November 28, 2013 were declared void ab initio for deprivation of administrative due process.

Citizenship under the 1935 Constitution—Election, Formal and Informal

Because Prescott was born in 1950, his citizenship status must be considered under the 1935 Constitution. Article IV, §1(4) of the 1935 Constitution required children born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority. Commonwealth Act No. 625 prescribed formalities (written sworn statement, filing with civil registry, oath of allegiance). Jurisprudence developed two means of “election”: (a) formal election pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 625, and (b) informal election demonstrated by categorical, consistent, and public acts evidencing choice (e.g., voting, public office, unmistakable conduct showing allegiance). Later cases generally demanded formal election, though exceptions exist where formal election was performed but unregistered or where sustained, consistent acts evidenced membership and the delay was justified.

Court’s Holdings on Prescott’s Citizenship (Primary and Alternative Grounds)

Primary ground — formal/substantial compliance and informal election: The Court held that Prescott is a natural‑born Philippine citizen. It found that his Oath of Allegiance taken on November 26, 2008 in the course of reacquiring Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 substantially complies with the formal election requirements in Commonwealth Act No. 625 and that his lifelong, consistent, and public acts (born, raised, educated, worked, married, identified as Filipino in official documents, returned to retire in the Philippines, issuance of Philippine passport and identification certificate, use of balikbayan status, and immediate application for reacquisition after U.S. naturalization) demonstrate his informal election and clear allegiance to the Philippines. The Court treated the 2008 Oath and the totality of Prescott’s conduct as satisfying the election requirement despite the long delay from majority age to formal oath. The Court noted that the formal timeframes for election were not fixed in Commonwealth Act No. 625 and that jurisprudence permits extension for special circumstances.

Alternative ground — statelessness and the 1961 Convention: Even if the 2008 Oath did not constitute substantial compliance, the Court held that Prescott became stateless after losing U.S. citizenship in 1976 and that principles of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (to which the Philippines acceded) obligate the Philippines to grant nationality to persons born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless where one parent was Filipino. The Court concluded that the Philippines had an obligation under the Convention and that Prescott should be recognized as a Philippine national retroactively, supporting his classification as natural‑born.

Conclusion on eligibility: Because Prescott is a natural‑born Filipino under the applicable legal reasoning, he was eligible to reacquire Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 and was not an alien subject to deportation.

Habeas Corpus and Voidi

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms