Ma'am Beth's last lecture before Christmas Break

Frivaldo:
Why is it that if he is naturalized, and even if he claims that he loses his citizenship, he can still not hold office…
Frivaldo 2: liberal interpretation, Taking oath (repatriated) retroacted to the time he filed a COC since law is not clear when citizenship requirement required
What's the difference between Frivaldo and Labo cases?
Labo: only application for REPARTRIATION during the time he filed his COC - application not granted yet!!!!
Vs. Frivaldo: he only lacked the taking of oath (assume that his application for repatriation was already granted)
EDU MANZANO CASE (ok lang tumakbo even if dual citizen!) -filed VM of Makati, won
-qualifications questioned as to citizenship - there's proof that he was an American Citizen (born in states)
H: He possessed dual nationality - but this is different to dual allegiance! -taking oath in COC renounces other citizenships aside from RP - dual allegiance prohibited
DUAL ALLEGIANCE: citizenship w/ positive act to acquire citizenship
DUAL NATIONALITY: mere citizenship w/o doing anything,
e.g. (1) born in a jus soli country but has jus sanguinis country
(2) if follow dad's nationality
(3) marriage of Filipinas to foreigners
*act of voting not enough, running for office enough to show that you did not have allegiance
---similar to Aznar case: as long as no positive act to renounce citizenship, considered still a Filipino citizen - filing of COC is enough
Common element ng other grounds: abandonment of allegiance to the Philippines by positive acts
On rendering service to the Armed Forces of another country: defend another state
Accepting a commission: apply with AFP: means you are ready to defend a country, and you won't offer your life to another country if you don't believe to the interest of that country
LI Yao Case
-tax amnesty did not erase the fact that he did not have good moral character during the pendency of his naturalization proceeding
>>>opportunity to make up for their mistakes
*maybe this results from the fact that he was Chinese
Nottebohm Case
-when there are some issues which are to be determined by one's state laws, apply the law of the effective nationality
(weh..okay, my turn)
Kookooritchin Case
-stateless individual
…so better to follow the law of the domicile (where you live better provides conditions which are closer to you)
FPJ CASE
-political law - includes citizenship - does not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children
DOMICILE
Merits and Demerits
Merits: person and particular state
-so how more appropriate?  See under Kookooritchin
Demerits:
1. Should show factum et animus
Fact: physical presence
Animus
>manendi: intention to remain
> revertendi: intention to return - means that you're actually in another place
IMELDA MARCOS CASE
-the case where the justices insist that the election qualifications intended to mean "domicile" since in election law, domicile = residence
Cf. CAASI v. COMELEC: what if Miguel lived in Pangasinan since birth and intends to return and stay there? Would his green card mean a thing?
Ma'am: she became a Metro Manila Governor. How could she have not intended to have her domicile in Metro Manila then? Or else she would not qualify as Governor of Metro Manila
Separate opinions: manner by which Tacloban residence was acquired.
"by my watch it's not yet 2 o'clock so you're watch is wrong…my watch is expensive"
4 principles of DOMICILE
On domicile relative to purpose: depends on purpose
In re Dorrance Estate
-expression of desire to have a domicile in one state does not void the fact that he has performed acts (had a presence in the other domicile) and has intention to stay in another place
*length of time is not determinative of domicile
-but it can help! -so it's difficult to determine intent to stay or return
How to determine intent if not by length of time? By the acts of the person
-not time per se, not motive (reason why you're in one place or another)
-difficulty with acts: acts does not always correspond with words...
Review guidelines for adoption!!!!