Alih vs. Castro

151 SCRA 279

June 23, 1987

Facts:

Respondents who were a member of the Philippine Marine and defense raided the compound of

the petitioner in search of loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives. A shoot-out happened

after the petitioners resisted the action of respondents that caused some of the men to be killed.

The petitioners were arrested because of their action. Several rifles, grenades and ammunition

were confiscated.

The petitioners filed an injunction to bring back the items that was forcedly taken to them. The

respondents admitted that the operation was done without any warrant, but they reasoned that it

was ordered by the superiors and the operation is needed because of the aggravation of the

peace and order problem due to the assassination of the city mayor.

Issue:

Whether or not the seizing of the items violates the bill of rights and are not valid as evidence

against the petitioners.

Held:

The petitioners maybe the suspects on the assassination of the city mayor, but they have not

been investigated yet so everyone is entitled in due process. The search on the petitioner’s

premises violates the law and all the items that were taken away from the petitioners were not

valid as evidence against them.

Mercado v. Manzano

G.R. No. 135083

May 26, 1999

Facts:

Petitioner filed a disqualification for election to the respondents to the reason that the

respondent has a dual citizenship and according to the law, a person who has a dual citizenship

has no right to run in the public office.

The respondent is a son of both Filipino which follows the principle of Jus Soli, but the fact that

he was born in America he was considered as an American citizen.

The Philippines follows the principle of Jus Soli, so the COMELEC allowed Manzano to run

because he was considered natural-born because his parents are both Filipino.

Issue:

Whether or not can Manzano run for public office, even if he has dual citizenship?

Held:

The act of the Respondent on filing a certificate of candidacy is an evident that he gives up his

allegiance to the other country and terminates his status as dual. The court says that the

participation in the election is also evidence that the respondent formally rejects his American

citizenship.

Ma. Jeanette Tecson v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 161434

March 3, 2004

Facts:

Petitioners sought the disqualification of presidential candidacy for the respondent for he is

claiming that he is a natural Filipino citizen even if his parents are both foreigner. The petitioners

assail the COMELEC, saying that only the Supreme Court has the position to resolve this issue.

Issue:

Whether or not the COMELEC is holding too much to avoid private information about the

respondent to leak out.

Held:

COMELEC did not committed discretion in holding Poe’s Filipino citizen. According to the 1935

constitution on citizenship that among the citizen of the Philippines are those whose fathers are

citizens of the Philippines. The court has proved that the respondent is a Filipino citizen by

tracing his paternal lineage, his grandfather Lorenzo was a Filipino citizen based on his birth

certificate and his citizenship was extended to his son, Allan, who is the father of the

respondent. It concluded that the respondent’s father is a Filipino citizen so based on the 1935

constitution; the respondent will take his citizenship to his father.

Ynot v. Intermidiate Appelate Court

G.R. No. 74457

March 20, 1987

Facts:

In 1980 President Marcos amended Executive Order No. 626-A which orders that

no carabao and carabeef shall be transported from one province to another.

On January 13, 1984, the petitioner transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Ilo-Ilo,

but because of the Executive Order 626-A, the 6 carabaos has been confiscated by

thepolice station commander of Barotac, Nuevo Ilo-Ilo. The petitioner wants his

property back, so he issued a writ for replevin.

Issue:

Whether or not the Executive Order 626-A unconstitutional

Held:

The Supreme Court found out that the Executive Order 626-A is unconstitutional. The petitioner

was found guilty and provided a punishment. The Supreme Court also found out that the

confiscation of carabaos was taken arbitrarily, so in that case the carabaos were returned to the

petitioner, only after he had filed a complaint and given a P12, 000.00.

Republic v. Guy

115 SCRA 244

Facts:

The Petitioner was born on January 1, 1923 in Amoy, China. In 1932, as a nine-year old boy, he

arrived at the port of Manila. Since then, he stayed in the Philippines and built a business and

married a Filipina. At the age of 66, he filed a petition for Filipino citizenship under the Revised

Naturalization Law. The State, appealed contending that petitioner has violations namely: failed

to state all the names by which he is or had been known; failed to state all his former places of

residence in violation of C.A. No. 473, failed to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable

manner during his entire stay in the Philippines; has no known lucrative trade or occupation and

his previous incomes have been insufficient or not declared; and failed to support his petition

with the appropriate documentary evidence.

Issue:

Whether or not the petition of Ong Chia is approved given that he failed to submit all the needed

documents.

Held:

The Petitioner failed to submit all the needed documents. Naturalization laws should be rigidly

enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. So with

this provision and the rule of strict application of the law in naturalization cases defeat

petitioner's argument of substantial compliance, so the Court of Appeals concluded that the

petition is denied.