Skip to main content

Carlos vs Ramos

Carlos vs Ramos

These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T. Ramos against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmy’s personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten.

ISSUE: Did we adopt the jus soli or jus sanguinins principle? Does the principle of res adjudicata apply to decisions on citizenship?

HELD: We adopted the jus sanguinis principle. The doctrine of jus soli was never extended to the Philippines. The doctrine of jus soli was for a time the prevailing rule in the acquisition of one’s citizenship. However, the Supreme Court abandoned the principle of jus soli in the case of Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor. Since then, said doctrine only benefited those who were individually declared to be citizens of the Philippines by a final court decision on the mistaken application of jus soli.
In citizenship proceedings, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course. Res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the following concur: 1. a person’s citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party; 2. the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and 3. the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Art XI, Sec2 Ombudsman vs. Mojica GR 146486 The case had its inception on 29 December 1999, when twenty-two officials and employees of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman (OMB) for the Visayas, led by its two directors, filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman requesting an investigation on the basis of allegations that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, private respondent Arturo Mojica, committed the following: 1. Sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua-Varona; 2. Mulcting money from confidential employees James Alueta and Eden Kiamco; and 3. Oppression against all employees in not releasing the P7,200.00 benefits of OMB-Visayas employees. The complaints in Criminal Case No. OMB-0-00-0615 and Administrative Case No. OMB-ADM-0-00-0316, were dismissed. Thereupon, on 15 January 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before this Court “a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and alternatively, an original spe...
Post a Comment
Read more

oblicon

NATIONAL MARKETING CORPORATION VS. FEDERATION OF UNITED NAMARCO DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 49 SCRA 238 FACTS: On November 16, 1959, the NAMARCO and the FEDERATION entered into a Contract of Sale stipulating among others that Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) be paid as part payment, and FEDERATION deposits with the NAMARCO upon signing of the items and/or merchandise a cash basis payment upon delivery of the duly indorsed negotiable shipping document covering the same. To insure payment of the goods by the FEDERATION, the NAMARCO accepted three domestic letters of credit which is an accepted draft and duly executed trust receipt approved by the Philippine National Bank. Upon arrival of the goods in Manila in January, 1960, the NAMARCO billed FEDERATION Statement of Account for P277,357.91, covering shipment of the 2,000 cartons of PK Chewing Gums, 1,000 cartons of Juicy Fruit Chewing Gums, and 500 cartons of Adams Chicklets; Statement of Account of P135,891.32, covering shipment of the ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (...
Post a Comment
Read more