Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AASJS MEMBER - HECTOR GUMANGAN CALILUNG v. SIMEON DATUMANONG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 199113 2015-03-18	RENATO M. DAVID v. EDITHA A. AGBAY VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. As its title declares, R.A. 9225 amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual citizenship,[21] and also provides for the procedure for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the new law.
	GR No. 198742 2012-08-10	TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON v. COMELEC REYES, J.
We have stressed in Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers (AASJS) Member v. Datumanong[31] that the framers of R.A. No. 9225 did not intend the law to concern itself with the actual status of the other citizenship.
	GR No. 176947 2009-02-19	GAUDENCIO M. CORDORA v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
We have to consider the present case in consonance with our rulings in Mercado v. Manzano,[9] Valles v. COMELEC,[10] and AASJS v. Datumanong.[11] Mercado and Valles involve similar operative facts as the present case. Manzano and Valles, like Tambunting, possessed dual citizenship by the circumstances of their birth. Manzano was born to Filipino parents in the United States which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Valles was born to an Australian mother and a Filipino father in Australia. Our rulings in Manzano and Valles stated that dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance both by cause and, for those desiring to run for public office, by effect. Dual citizenship is involuntary and arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. Thus, like any other natural-born Filipino, it is enough for a person with dual citizenship who seeks public office to file his certificate of candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance contained therein. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, is brought about by the individual's active participation in the naturalization process. AASJS states that, under R.A. No. 9225, a Filipino who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country is allowed to retain his Filipino citizenship by swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines. The act of taking an oath of allegiance is an implicit renunciation of a naturalized citizen's foreign citizenship.
	GR No. 162224 2007-06-07	2ND LT. SALVADOR PARREÑO v. COA CARPIO, J.
Hence, petitioner has other recourse if he desires to continue receiving his monthly pension. Just recently, in AASJS Member-Hector Gumangan Calilung v. Simeon Datumanong,[25] this Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 9225. If petitioner reacquires his Filipino citizenship, he will even recover his natural-born citizenship.[26] In Tabasa v. Court of Appeals,[27] this Court reiterated that "[t]he repatriation of the former Filipino will allow him to recover his natural-born citizenship x x x."