Skip to main content

Tabasa vs CA

Tabasa vs CA

In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen of the United States. By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner also acquired American citizenship. Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor.


ISSUE: Is Jeovanie Tabasa a natural-born Filipino who had lost his Philippine citizenship by reason of political or economic necessity under RA 8171?

HELD: He does not. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic necessity. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. Petitioner overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. The privilege under RA 8171 belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of the filing of the petition for repatriation.

Comments

  1. kittitianhillMay 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM

    Hello,
    Where ten years ago having a nice snack tray and a light vacuum could make all the difference, today's market is a much tougher sell.

    economic citizenship st kitts

    ReplyDelete

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