MARIZ LINDSEY TAN GANA-CARAIT Y VILLEGAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL MITRA LIM, AND DOMINIC P. NUÑEZ, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 257453
- Promulgated: 2022-08-09
- Ponente: ROSARIO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Petitioner Mariz Lindsey Tan Villegas Gana-Carait filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Member of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Biñan, Laguna for the May 2019 National and Local Elections. Private respondent Rommel Mitra Lim filed a petition for disqualification against her, alleging that she acquired US citizenship and sought election without a personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. Separately, private respondent Dominic P. Nuñez filed a petition to deny due course to or cancel her CoC, claiming she was a dual citizen who used a US passport, making her representations in her CoC false. Petitioner countered that she was a dual citizen by birth, as she was born in the US, and that **Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225** (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) did not apply to her as she did not voluntarily acquire US citizenship. She also argued that possession of an American passport was not a basis for disqualification. The COMELEC First Division denied the petition for disqualification but granted the petition to cancel her CoC. It found that petitioner was a dual citizen, having been born to a Filipino father and an American mother, and possessed a US Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA) and US passport. The COMELEC First Division concluded that petitioner was a dual citizen by naturalization and that **R.A. 9225** applied to her. It ruled that she committed material misrepresentation by stating her eligibility to run for office without complying with the twin requirements of taking an oath of allegiance to the Philippines and renouncing her foreign citizenship. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this decision, leading petitioner to file the present Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Did the COMELEC En Banc gravely abuse its discretion in affirming the COMELEC First Division's findings that petitioner is a dual citizen by naturalization and subject to the twin requirements of **R.A. No. 9225**? 2. Did the COMELEC En Banc gravely abuse its discretion in cancelling petitioner’s Certificate of Candidacy? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC En Banc gravely abused its discretion. The Court held that **R.A. 9225** applies only to natural-born Filipino citizens who lost their citizenship through naturalization in a foreign country, or who, after its effectivity, became citizens of a foreign country through naturalization. It specifically applies to dual citizens by naturalization, not dual citizens by birth. Dual citizens by birth are not required to take an oath of renunciation, as the mere filing of a CoC carries an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship. The Court found that the COMELEC's conclusion that petitioner was a dual citizen by naturalization was erroneous for three reasons: * **Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws.** The COMELEC should not have taken judicial notice of Act 322 of the United States Immigration Nationality Act (INA) without proper proof. * Even if the INA provisions were considered, they suggest that if any positive acts were performed, they would have been by petitioner's American parent, not by her. There was no evidence that petitioner voluntarily petitioned for or went through a naturalization process to acquire US citizenship. * **Naturalization** implies adopting a foreigner and clothing them with the privileges of a native citizen. Since petitioner was already a US citizen by birth, naturalization proceedings would be superfluous for her. The **CRBA** itself stated that petitioner "acquired United States Citizenship at birth," with documentary evidence merely establishing this fact. The Court referenced **Cordora v. COMELEC**, which similarly held that obtaining documentation to confirm US citizenship acquired at birth is not equivalent to naturalization. Therefore, the Court concluded that petitioner was a dual citizen by…
Keywords
Rule 64 Rules of Court, Rule 65 Rules of Court, Republic Act No. 9225, Section 3 Republic Act No. 9225, Section 5 Republic Act No. 9225, Section 39 Local Government Code, Section 78 Omnibus Election Code, Section 74 Omnibus Election Code, Section 1 Commonwealth Act No. 63, Article IV Section 5 1987 Constitution, Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance, Involuntary Dual Citizenship, Voluntary Dual Allegiance, Election Law, Citizenship, Disqualification of Candidates, Certificate of Candidacy Cancellation, Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA), Material Misrepresentation