Cases Conflicts.docx

GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. GEORGE I. FRANK G.R. No. L-2935; March 23, 1909 Per J. Johnson, En Banc Judgment was rendered in the lower court on the 5th day of September, 1905. The defendant appealed. On the 12th day of October, 1905, the appellant filed his printed bill of exceptions with the clerk of the Supreme Court. On the 5th day of December, 1905, the appellant filed his brief with the clerk of the Supreme Court. On the 19th day of January, 1906, the Attorney-General filed his brief in said cause. Nothing further was done in said cause until on or about the 30th day of January, 1909, when the respective parties were requested by this court to prosecute the appeal under the penalty of having the same dismissed for failure so to do; whereupon the appellant, by petition, had the caused placed upon the calendar and the same was heard on the 2d day of February, 1909. The facts from the record appear to be as follows:

First. That on or about the 17th day of April, 1903, in the city of Chicago, in the state of Illinois, in the United States, the defendant, through a respective of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands, entered into a contract for a period of two years with the plaintiff, by which the defendant was to receive a salary of 1,200 dollars per year as a stenographer in the service of the said plaintiff, and in addition thereto was to be paid in advance the expenses incurred in traveling from the said city of Chicago to Manila, and one-half salary during said period of travel. Second. Said contract contained a provision that in case of a violation of its terms on the part of the defendant, he should become liable to the plaintiff for the amount expended by the Government by way of expenses incurred in traveling from Chicago to Manila and one-half salary paid during such period. Third. The defendant entered upon the performance of his contract upon the 30th day of April, 1903, and was paid half-salary from that date until June 4, 1903, the date of his arrival in the Philippine Islands. Fourth. That on the 11th day of February, 1904, the defendant left the service of

the plaintiff and refused to make further compliance with the terms of the contract. Fifth. On the 3d day of December, 1904, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila to recover from the defendant the sum of 269.23 dollars, which amount the plaintiff claimed had been paid to the defendant as expenses incurred in traveling from Chicago to Manila, and as half salary for the period consumed in travel.

Sixth. It was expressly agreed between the parties to said contract that Laws No. 80 and No. 224 should constitute a part of said contract.

To the complaint of the plaintiff the defendant filed a general denial and a special defense, alleging in his special defense that the Government of the Philippine Islands had amended Laws No. 80 and No. 224 and had thereby materially altered the said contract, and also that he was a minor at the time the contract was entered into and was therefore not responsible under the law. To the special defense of the defendant the plaintiff filed a demurrer, which demurrer the court sustained. Upon the issue thus presented, and after hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered a judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of 265.90 dollars. The lower court found that at the time the defendant quit the service of the plaintiff there was due him from the said plaintiff the sum of 3.33 dollars, leaving a balance due the plaintiff in the sum of 265.90 dollars. From this judgment the defendant appealed and made the following assignments of error: 1.

The court erred in sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to defendant's special defenses.

2.

The court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant on the facts.

With reference to the above assignments of error, it may be said that the mere fact that the legislative department of the Government of the Philippine Islands had amended said Acts No. 80 and No. 224 by the Acts No. 643 and No. 1040 did not have the effect of changing the terms of the contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant. The legislative department of the Government is expressly prohibited by section 5 of the Act of Congress of 1902 from altering or changing the terms of the contract. The right which the defendant had acquired by virtue of Acts No. 80 and No. 224 had not been changed in any respect by the fact that said laws had been amended. These acts, constituting the terms of the contract, still constituted a part of said contract and were enforceable in favor of the defendant. The defendant alleged in his special defense that he was a minor and therefore the contract could not be enforced against him. The record discloses that, at the time the contract was entered into in the State of Illinois, he was an adult under the laws of that State and had full authority to contract. The plaintiff [the defendant] claims that, by reason of the fact that, under the laws of the Philippine Islands at the time the contract was made, male persons in said Islands did not reach their majority until they had attained the age of 23 years, he was not liable under said contract, contending that the laws of the Philippine Islands governed. It is not disputed — upon the contrary the fact is admitted — that at the time and place of the making of the contract in question the defendant had full capacity to make the same. No rule is better settled in law than that matters bearing upon the execution, interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made. Matters connected with

its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting a remedy, such as the bringing of suit, admissibility of evidence, and statutes of limitations, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought. The defendant's claim that he was an adult when he left Chicago but was a minor when he arrived at Manila; that he was an adult at the time he made the contract but was a minor at the time the plaintiff attempted to enforce the contract, more than a year later, is not tenable. Our conclusions with reference to the first above assignment of error are, therefore:

First. That the amendments to Acts No. 80 and No. 224 in no way affected the terms of the contract in question; and Second. The plaintiff [defendant] being fully qualified to enter into the contract at the place and time the contract was made, he cannot plead infancy as a defense at the place where the contract is being enforced. We believe that the above conclusions also dispose of the second assignment of error. For the reasons above stated, the judgment of the lower court is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

BANK OF AMERICA v. AMERICAN REALTY CORP. and COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 133876 December 29, 1999 Per J. Buena, Second Division Does a mortgage-creditor waive its remedy to foreclose the real estate mortgage constituted over a third party mortgagor's property situated in the Philippines by filing an action for the collection of the principal loan before foreign courts?

(b) In England, in its High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court (1992-Folio No. 2245) against El Challenger S.A., Espriona Shipping Company S.A., Eduardo Katipuan Litonjua & Aurelio Katipunan Litonjua on July 2, 1992;

Sought to be reversed in the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the decision of public respondent Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 51094, promulgated on 30 September 1997 and its resolution, dated 22 May 1998, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

(c) In Hongkong, in the Supreme Court of Hongkong High Court (Action No. 4039 of 1992) against Eshley Compania Naviera S.A., El Challenger S.A., Espriona Shipping Company S.A. Pacific Navigators Corporation, Eddie Navigation Corporation S.A., Litonjua Chartering (Edyship) Co., Inc., Aurelio Katipunan Litonjua, Jr. and Eduardo Katipunan Litonjua on November 19, 1992; and

Petitioner Bank of America NT & SA (BANTSA) is an international banking and financing institution duly licensed to do business in the Philippines, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, United States of America while private respondent American Realty Corporation (ARC) is a domestic corporation.

(d) In Hongkong, in the Supreme Court of Hongkong High Court (Action No. 4040 of 1992) against Eshley Compania Naviera S.A., El Challenger S.A., Espriona Shipping Company, S.A., Pacific Navigators Corporation, Eddie Navigation Corporation S.A., Litonjua Chartering (Edyship) Co., Jr. and Eduardo Katipunan Litonjua on November 21, 1992.

Bank of America International Limited (BAIL), on the other hand, is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of England.

In the civil suits instituted before the foreign courts, private respondent ARC, being a third party mortgagor, was private not impleaded as party-defendant.

As borne by the records, BANTSA and BAIL on several occasions granted three major multi-million United States (US) Dollar loans to the following corporate borrowers: (1) Liberian Transport Navigation, S.A.; (2) El Challenger S.A. and (3) Eshley Compania Naviera S.A. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "borrowers"), all of which are existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of Panama and are foreign affiliates of private respondent.

On 16 December 1992, petitioner BANTSA filed before the Office of the Provincial Sheriff of Bulacan, Philippines an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage.

Due to the default in the payment of the loan amortizations, BANTSA and the corporate borrowers signed and entered into restructuring agreements. As additional security for the restructured loans, private respondent ARC as third party mortgagor executed two real estate mortgages, dated 17 February 1983 and 20 July 1984, over its parcels of land including improvements thereon, located at Barrio Sto. Cristo, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan, and which are covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T78759, T-78760, T-78761, T-78762 and T-78763. Eventually, the corporate borrowers defaulted in the payment of the restructured loans prompting petitioner BANTSA to file civil actions before foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan, to wit: (a) In England, in its High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court (1992-Folio No 2098) against Liberian Transport Navigation S.A., Eshley Compania Naviera S.A., El Challenger S.A., Espriona Shipping Company S.A., Eddie Navigation Corp., S.A., Eduardo Katipunan Litonjua and Aurelio Katipunan Litonjua on June 17, 1992.

On 22 January 1993, after due publication and notice, the mortgaged real properties were sold at public auction in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, with Integrated Credit and Corporation Services Co (ICCS) as the highest bidder for Php24,000.000.00. On 12 February 1993, private respondent filed before the Pasig Regional Trial Court, Branch 159, an action for damages against the petitioner, for the latter's act of foreclosing extrajudicially the real estate mortgages despite the pendency of civil suits before foreign courts for the collection of the principal loan. In its answer petitioner alleged that the rule prohibiting the mortgagee from foreclosing the mortgage after an ordinary suit for collection has been filed, is not applicable in the present case, claiming that: (a) The plaintiff, being a mere third party mortgagor and not a party to the principal restructuring agreements, was never made a party defendant in the civil cases filed in Hongkong and England; (b) There is actually no civil suit for sum of money filed in the Philippines since the civil actions were filed in Hongkong and England. As such, any decisions

(sic) which may be rendered in the abovementioned courts are not (sic) enforceable in the Philippines unless a separate action to enforce the foreign judgments is first filed in the Philippines, pursuant to Rule 39, Section 50 of the Revised Rules of Court.

(1) Actual or compensatory damages of Php99,000,000.00; (2) Exemplary damages of Php5,000,000.00; and

(c) Under English Law, which is the governing law under the principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by filing civil actions for sums of money. On 14 December 1993, private respondent filed a motion for suspension of the redemption period on the ground that "it cannot exercise said right of redemption without at the same time waiving or contradicting its contentions in the case that the foreclosure of the mortgage on its properties is legally improper and therefore invalid." In an order dated 28 January 1994, the trial court granted the private respondent's motion for suspension after which a copy of said order was duly received by the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan. On 07 February 1994, ICCS, the purchaser of the mortgaged properties at the foreclosure sale, consolidated its ownership over the real properties, resulting to the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-18627, T-186272, T-186273, T-16471 and T-16472 in its name. On 18 March 1994, after the consolidation of ownership in its favor, ICCS sold the real properties to Stateland Investment Corporation for the amount of Thirty Nine Million Pesos (P39,000,000.00). Accordingly, Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-187781(m), T187782(m), T-187783(m), T-16653P(m) and T-16652P(m) were issued in the latter's name.

(3) Costs of suit. SO ORDERED. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision of the lower court prompting petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration which the appellate court denied. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari where herein petitioner BANTSA ascribes to the Court of Appeals the following assignment of errors: 1.

The Court of Appeals disregarded the doctrines of Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and Philippine Commercial International Bank vs. IAC although said cases were duly cited, extensively discussed and specifically mentioned, as one of the issues in the assignment of errors of the

2.

The Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion when it awarded the private respondent actual and exemplary damages of Php171,600,000.00 although such huge amount was not asked nor prayed for in private respondent's complaint, is contrary to law and is totally unsupported by evidence.

In fine, this Court is called upon to resolve two main issues: 1.

Whether or not the petitioner's act of filing a collection suit against the principal debtors for the recovery of the loan before foreign courts constituted a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure.

2.

Whether or not the award by the lower court of actual and exemplary damages in favor of private respondent ARC, as third-party mortgagor, is proper.

After trial, the lower court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent ARC dated 12 May 1993, the decretal portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the filing in foreign courts by the defendant of collection suits against the principal debtors operated as a waiver of the security of the mortgages. Consequently, the plaintiff's rights as owner and possessor of the properties then covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-78759, T-78762, T-78763, T-78760 and T78761, all of the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan, Philippines, were violated when the defendant caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages constituted thereon. Accordingly, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the following sums, all with legal interest thereon from the date of the filing of the complaint up to the date of actual payment:

The petition is bereft of merit.

First, as to the issue of availability of remedies, petitioner submits that a waiver of the remedy of foreclosure requires the concurrence of two requisites: an ordinary civil action for collection should be filed and subsequently a final judgment be correspondingly rendered therein.

According to petitioner, the mere filing of a personal action to collect the principal loan does not suffice; a final judgment must be secured and obtained in the personal action so that waiver of the remedy of foreclosure may be appreciated. To put it differently, absent any of the two requisites, the mortgagee-creditor is deemed not to have waived the remedy of foreclosure. We do not agree. Certainly, this Court finds petitioner's arguments untenable and upholds the jurisprudence laid down in Bachrach and similar cases adjudicated thereafter, thus: In the absence of express statutory provisions, a mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action or debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage. In other words, he may he may pursue either of the two remedies, but not both. By such election, his cause of action can by no means be impaired, for each of the two remedies is complete in itself. Thus, an election to bring a personal action will leave open to him all the properties of the debtor for attachment and execution, even including the mortgaged property itself. And, if he waives such personal action and pursues his remedy against the mortgaged property, an unsatisfied judgment thereon would still give him the right to sue for a deficiency judgment, in which case, all the properties of the defendant, other than the mortgaged property, are again open to him for the satisfaction of the deficiency. In either case, his remedy is complete, his cause of action undiminished, and any advantages attendant to the pursuit of one or the other remedy are purely accidental and are all under his right of election. On the other hand, a rule that would authorize the plaintiff to bring a personal action against the debtor and simultaneously or successively another action against the mortgaged property, would result not only in multiplicity of suits so offensive to justice and obnoxious to law and equity, but also in subjecting the defendant to the vexation of being sued in the place of his residence or of the residence of the plaintiff, and then again in the place where the property lies. In Danao vs. Court of Appeals, this Court, reiterating jurisprudence enunciated in Manila Trading and Supply Co vs. Co Kim and Movido vs. RFC, invariably held: The rule is now settled that a mortgage creditor may elect to waive his security and bring, instead, an ordinary action to recover the indebtedness with the right to execute a judgment thereon on all the properties of the debtor, including the subject matter of the mortgage, subject to the qualification that if

he fails in the remedy by him elected, he cannot pursue further the remedy he has waived.

Anent real properties in particular, the Court has laid down the rule that a mortgage creditor may institute against the mortgage debtor either a personal action for debt or a real action to foreclose the mortgage.

In our jurisdiction, the remedies available to the mortgage creditor are deemed alternative and not cumulative. Notably, an election of one remedy operates as a waiver of the other. For this purpose, a remedy is deemed chosen upon the filing of the suit for collection or upon the filing of the complaint in an action for foreclosure of mortgage, pursuant to the provision of Rule 68 of the of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As to extrajudicial foreclosure, such remedy is deemed elected by the mortgage creditor upon filing of the petition not with any court of justice but with the Office of the Sheriff of the province where the sale is to be made, in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118. In the case at bench, private respondent ARC constituted real estate mortgages over its properties as security for the debt of the principal debtors. By doing so, private respondent subjected itself to the liabilities of a third party mortgagor. Under the law, third persons who are not parties to a loan may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging their own property. Notwithstanding, there is no legal provision nor jurisprudence in our jurisdiction which makes a third person who secures the fulfillment of another's obligation by mortgaging his own property, to be solidarily bound with the principal obligor. The signatory to the principal contract—loan—remains to be primarily bound. It is only upon default of the latter that the creditor may have recourse on the mortgagors by foreclosing the mortgaged properties in lieu of an action for the recovery of the amount of the loan. In the instant case, petitioner's contention that the requisites of filing the action for collection and rendition of final judgment therein should concur, is untenable. Thus, in Cerna vs. Court of Appeals, we agreed with the petitioner in said case, that the filing of a collection suit barred the foreclosure of the mortgage: A mortgagee who files a suit for collection abandons the remedy of foreclosure of the chattel mortgage constituted over the personal property as security for the debt or value of the promissory note when he seeks to recover in the said collection suit. When the mortgagee elects to file a suit for collection, not foreclosure, thereby abandoning the chattel mortgage as basis for relief, he clearly manifests his lack of desire and interest to go after the mortgaged property as security for the promissory note. Contrary to petitioner's arguments, we therefore reiterate the rule, for clarity and emphasis, that the mere act of filing of an ordinary action for collection operates as a waiver of the mortgage-creditor's remedy to foreclose the mortgage. By the mere filing of the ordinary action for collection against the principal debtors, the petitioner in the present case is deemed to have elected a remedy, as a result of which a waiver of the

other necessarily must arise. Corollarily, no final judgment in the collection suit is required for the rule on waiver to apply. Hence, in Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Intermediate-Appellate Court, a case relied upon by petitioner, supposedly to buttress its contention, this Court had occasion to rule that the mere act of filing a collection suit for the recovery of a debt secured by a mortgage constitutes waiver of the other remedy of foreclosure. In the case at bar, petitioner BANTSA only has one cause of action which is nonpayment of the debt. Nevertheless, alternative remedies are available for its enjoyment and exercise. Petitioner then may opt to exercise only one of two remedies so as not to violate the rule against splitting a cause of action. As elucidated by this Court in the landmark case of Bachrach Motor Co., Inc, vs.

Icarangal.

For non-payment of a note secured by mortgage, the creditor has a single cause of action against the debtor. This single cause of action consists in the recovery of the credit with execution of the security. In other words, the creditor in his action may make two demands, the payment of the debt and the foreclosure of his mortgage. But both demands arise from the same cause, the non-payment of the debt, and for that reason, they constitute a single cause of action. Though the debt and the mortgage constitute separate agreements, the latter is subsidiary to the former, and both refer to one and the same obligation. Consequently, there exists only one cause of action for a single breach of that obligation. Plaintiff, then, by applying the rules above stated, cannot split up his single cause of action by filing a complaint for payment of the debt, and thereafter another complaint for foreclosure of the mortgage. If he does so, the filing of the first complaint will bar the subsequent complaint. By allowing the creditor to file two separate complaints simultaneously or successively, one to recover his credit and another to foreclose his mortgage, we will, in effect, be authorizing him plural redress for a single breach of contract at so much cost to the courts and with so much vexation and oppression to the debtor. Petitioner further faults the Court of Appeals for allegedly disregarding the doctrine enunciated in Caltex wherein this High Court relaxed the application of the general rules to wit: In the present case, however, we shall not follow this rule to the letter but declare that it is the collection suit which was waived and/or abandoned. This ruling is more in harmony with the principles underlying our judicial system. It is of no moment that the collection suit was filed ahead, what is determinative is the fact that the foreclosure proceedings ended even before the decision in the collection suit was rendered.

Notably, though, petitioner took the Caltex ruling out of context. We must stress that the Caltex case was never intended to overrule the well-entrenched doctrine enunciated Bachrach, which to our mind still finds applicability in cases of this sort. To reiterate, Bachrach is still good law. We then quote the decision of the trial court, in the present case, thus: The aforequoted ruling in Caltex is the exception rather than the rule, dictated by the peculiar circumstances obtaining therein. In the said case, the Supreme Court chastised Caltex for making ". . . a mockery of our judicial system when it initially filed a collection suit then, during the pendency thereof, foreclosed extrajudicially the mortgaged property which secured the indebtedness, and still pursued the collection suit to the end." Thus, to prevent a mockery of our judicial system", the collection suit had to be nullified because

the foreclosure proceedings have already been pursued to their end and can no longer be undone. In the case at bar, it has not been shown whether the defendant pursued to the end or are still pursuing the collection suits filed in foreign courts. There is no occasion, therefore, for this court to apply the exception laid down by the Supreme Court in Caltex by nullifying the collection suits. Quite obviously, too, the aforesaid collection suits are beyond the reach of this Court. Thus the only way the court may prevent the spector of a creditor having "plural redress for a single breach of contract" is by holding, as the Court hereby holds, that the defendant has waived the right to foreclose the mortgages constituted by the plaintiff on its properties originally covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-78759, T-78762, T-78760 and T-78761.

In this light, the actuations of Caltex are deserving of severe criticism, to say the least. Moreover, petitioner attempts to mislead this Court by citing the case of PCIB vs. IAC. Again, petitioner tried to fit a square peg in a round hole. It must be stressed that far from overturning the doctrine laid down in Bachrach, this Court in PCIB buttressed its firm stand on this issue by declaring: While the law allows a mortgage creditor to either institute a personal action for the debt or a real action to foreclosure the mortgage, he cannot pursue both remedies simultaneously or successively as was done by PCIB in this case. Thus, when the PCIB filed Civil Case No. 29392 to enforce payment of the 1.3 million promissory note secured by real estate mortgages and subsequently filed a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure, it violates the rule against splitting a cause of action.

Accordingly, applying the foregoing rules, we hold that petitioner, by the expediency of filing four civil suits before foreign courts, necessarily abandoned the remedy to foreclose the real estate mortgages constituted over the properties of third-party mortgagor and herein private respondent ARC. Moreover, by filing the four civil actions and by eventually foreclosing extrajudicially the mortgages, petitioner in effect transgressed the rules against splitting a cause of action well-enshrined in jurisprudence and our statute books. In Bachrach, this Court resolved to deny the creditor the remedy of foreclosure after the collection suit was filed, considering that the creditor should not be afforded "plural redress for a single breach of contract." For cause of action should not be confused with the remedy created for its enforcement. Notably, it is not the nature of the redress which is crucial but the efficacy of the remedy chosen in addressing the creditor's cause. Hence, a suit brought before a foreign court having competence and jurisdiction to entertain the action is deemed, for this purpose, to be within the contemplation of the remedy available to the mortgageecreditor. This pronouncement would best serve the interest of justice and fair play and further discourage the noxious practice of splitting up a lone cause of action. Incidentally, BANTSA alleges that under English Law, which according to petitioner is the governing law with regard to the principal agreements, the mortgagee does not lose its security interest by simply filing civil actions for sums of money. We rule in the negative. This argument shows desperation on the part of petitioner to rivet its crumbling cause. In the case at bench, Philippine law shall apply notwithstanding the evidence presented by petitioner to prove the English law on the matter. In a long line of decisions, this Court adopted the well-imbedded principle in our jurisdiction that there is no judicial notice of any foreign law. A foreign law must be properly pleaded and proved as a fact. Thus, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. This is what we refer to as the doctrine of processual presumption. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that the English Law on the matter were properly pleaded and proved in accordance with Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court and the jurisprudence laid down in Yao Kee, et al. vs. Sy-Gonzales, said foreign law would still not find applicability. Thus, when the foreign law, judgment or contract is contrary to a sound and established public policy of the forum, the said foreign law, judgment or order shall not be applied.

Additionally, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. The public policy sought to be protected in the instant case is the principle imbedded in our jurisdiction proscribing the splitting up of a single cause of action. Section 4, Rule 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is pertinent — If two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal of the others. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Clearly then, English Law is not applicable. As to the second pivotal issue, we hold that the private respondent is entitled to the award of actual or compensatory damages inasmuch as the act of petitioner BANTSA in extrajudicially foreclosing the real estate mortgages constituted a clear violation of the rights of herein private respondent ARC, as third-party mortgagor. Actual or compensatory damages are those recoverable because of pecuniary loss in business, trade, property, profession, job or occupation and the same must be proved, otherwise if the proof is flimsy and non-substantial, no damages will be given. Indeed, the question of the value of property is always a difficult one to settle as valuation of real property is an imprecise process since real estate has no inherent value readily ascertainable by an appraiser or by the court. The opinions of men vary so much concerning the real value of property that the best the courts can do is hear all of the witnesses which the respective parties desire to present, and then, by carefully weighing that testimony, arrive at a conclusion which is just and equitable. In the instant case, petitioner assails the Court of Appeals for relying heavily on the valuation made by Philippine Appraisal Company. In effect, BANTSA questions the act of the appellate court in giving due weight to the appraisal report composed of 23, signed by Mr. Lauro Marquez and submitted as evidence by private respondent. The appraisal report, as the records would readily show, was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Reynaldo Flores, witness for private respondent. On this matter, the trial court observed:

The record herein reveals that plaintiff-appellee formally offered as evidence the appraisal report dated March 29, 1993, consisting of 23 pages which set out in detail the valuation of the property to determine its fair market value, in the amount of P99,986,592.00, together with the corroborative testimony of one Mr. Reynaldo F. Flores, an appraiser and director of Philippine Appraisal Company, Inc.. The latter's testimony was subjected to extensive cross-examination by counsel for defendant-appellant. In the matter of credibility of witnesses, the Court reiterates the familiar and wellentrenched rule that the factual findings of the trial court should be respected. The time-tested jurisprudence is that the findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses enjoy a badge of respect for the reason that trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify. This Court will not alter the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, principally because they are in a better position to assess the same than the appellate court. Besides, trial courts are in a better position to examine real evidence as well as observe the demeanor of witnesses. Similarly, the appreciation of evidence and the assessment of the credibility of witnesses rest primarily with the trial court. In the case at bar, we see no reason that would justify this Court to disturb the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, with regard to the award of actual damages. In arriving at the amount of actual damages, the trial court justified the award by presenting the following ratiocination in its assailed decision , to wit: Indeed, the Court has its own mind in the matter of valuation. The size of the subject real properties are (sic) set forth in their individuals titles, and the Court itself has seen the character and nature of said properties during the ocular inspection it conducted. Based principally on the foregoing, the Court makes the following observations: 1. The properties consist of about 39 hectares in Bo. Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, is not distant from Metro Manila — the biggest urban center in the Philippines — and are easily accessible through well-paved roads; 2. The properties are suitable for development into a subdivision for low cost housing, as admitted by defendant's own appraiser; 3. The pigpens which used to exist in the property have already been demolished. Houses of strong materials are found in the vicinity of the property, and the vicinity is a growing community. It has even been shown that the house of the Barangay Chairman is located adjacent to the property in question, and the only remaining piggery

(named Cherry Farm) in the vicinity is about 2 kilometers away from the western boundary of the property in question; 4. It will not be hard to find interested buyers of the property, as indubitably shown by the fact that on March 18, 1994, ICCS (the buyer during the foreclosure sale) sold the consolidated real estate properties to Stateland Investment Corporation, in whose favor new titles were issued, i.e., TCT Nos. T-187781(m); T-187782(m), T-187783(m); T16653P(m) and T-166521(m) by the Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan; 5. The fact that ICCS was able to sell the subject properties to Stateland Investment Corporation for Php39,000,000.00, which is more than triple defendant's appraisal clearly shows that the Court cannot rely on defendant's aforesaid estimate. It is a fundamental legal aphorism that the conclusions of the trial judge on the credibility of witnesses command great respect and consideration especially when the conclusions are supported by the evidence on record. Applying the foregoing principle, we therefore hold that the trial court committed no palpable error in giving credence to the testimony of Reynaldo Flores, who according to the records, is a licensed real estate broker, appraiser and director of Philippine Appraisal Company, Inc. since 1990. As the records show, Flores had been with the company for 26 years at the time of his testimony. Of equal importance is the fact that the trial court did not confine itself to the appraisal report dated 29 March 1993, and the testimony given by Mr. Reynaldo Flores, in determining the fair market value of the real property. Above all these, the record would likewise show that the trial judge in order to appraise himself of the characteristics and condition of the property, conducted an ocular inspection where the opposing parties appeared and were duly represented. Based on these considerations and the evidence submitted, we affirm the ruling of the trial court as regards the valuation of the property — A valuation of Php99,000,000.00 for the 39-hectare property translates to just about Php254.00 per square meter. This appears to be, as the court so holds, a better approximation of the fair market value of the subject properties. This is the amount which should be restituted by the defendant to the plaintiff by way of actual or compensatory damages. Further, petitioner ascribes error to the lower court awarding an amount allegedly not asked nor prayed for in private respondent's complaint.

Notwithstanding the fact that the award of actual and compensatory damages by the lower court exceeded that prayed for in the complaint, the same is nonetheless valid, subject to certain qualifications. On this issue, Rule 10, Section 5 of the Rules of Court is pertinent: Section 5. Amendment to conform to or authorize presentation of evidence. — When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried with the express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings. Such amendment of the pleadings as may be necessary to cause them to conform to the evidence and to raise these issues may be made upon motion of any party at any time, even after judgement; but failure to amend does not affect the result of the trial of these issues. If evidence is objected to at the trial on the ground that it is not within the issues made by the pleadings, the court may allow the pleadings to be amended and shall do so with liberality if the presentation of the merits of the action and the ends of substantial justice will be subserved thereby. The court may grant a continuance to enable the amendment to be made. The jurisprudence enunciated in Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. vs. Asociacion de Agricultures de Talisay-Silay, Inc. citing Northern Cement Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court is enlightening: There have been instances where the Court has held that even without the necessary amendment, the amount proved at the trial may be validly awarded, as in Tuazon v. Bolanos, where we said that if the facts shown entitled plaintiff to relief other than that asked for, no amendment to the complaint was necessary, especially where defendant had himself raised the point on which recovery was based. The appellate court could treat the pleading as amended to conform to the evidence although the pleadings were actually not amended. Amendment is also unnecessary when only clerical error or non substantial matters are involved, as we held in Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Laguna. In Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, we stressed that the rule on amendment need not be applied rigidly, particularly where no surprise or prejudice is caused the objecting party. And in the recent case of National Power Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, we held that where there is a variance in the defendant's pleadings and the evidence adduced by it at the trial, the Court may treat the pleading as amended to conform with the evidence. It is the view of the Court that pursuant to the above-mentioned rule and in light of the decisions cited, the trial court should not be precluded from awarding an amount higher than that claimed in the pleading notwithstanding the absence of the required amendment. But it is upon the condition that the evidence of such higher amount has been presented properly, with full opportunity on the part of the opposing parties to support their respective contentions and to refute each other's evidence.

The failure of a party to amend a pleading to conform to the evidence adduced during trial does not preclude an adjudication by the court on the basis of such evidence which may embody new issues not raised in the pleadings, or serve as a basis for a higher award of damages. Although the pleading may not have been amended to conform to the evidence submitted during trial, judgment may nonetheless be rendered, not simply on the basis of the issues alleged but also the basis of issues discussed and the assertions of fact proved in the course of trial. The court may treat the pleading as if it had been amended to conform to the evidence, although it had not been actually so amended. Former Chief Justice Moran put the matter in this way: When evidence is presented by one party, with the expressed or implied consent of the adverse party, as to issues not alleged in the pleadings, judgment may be rendered validly as regards those issues, which shall be considered as if they have been raised in the pleadings. There is implied consent to the evidence thus presented when the adverse party fails to object thereto. Clearly, a court may rule and render judgment on the basis of the evidence before it even though the relevant pleading had not been previously amended, so long as no surprise or prejudice is thereby caused to the adverse party. Put a little differently, so long as the basis requirements of fair play had been met, as where litigants were given full opportunity to support their respective contentions and to object to or refute each other's evidence, the court may validly treat the pleadings as if they had been amended to conform to the evidence and proceed to adjudicate on the basis of all the evidence before it. In the instant case, inasmuch as the petitioner was afforded the opportunity to refute and object to the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, formally offered by private respondent, the rudiments of fair play are deemed satisfied. In fact, the testimony of Reynaldo Flores was put under scrutiny during the course of the crossexamination. Under these circumstances, the court acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction and committed no reversible error in awarding actual damages the amount of which is higher than that prayed for. Verily, the lower court's actuations are sanctioned by the Rules and supported by jurisprudence. Similarly, we affirm the grant of exemplary damages although the amount of Php5,000,000.00 awarded, being excessive, is subject to reduction. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. Considering its purpose, it must be fair and reasonable in every case and should not be awarded to unjustly enrich a prevailing party. In our view, an award of Php50,000.00 as exemplary damages in the present case qualifies the test of reasonableness. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION of the amount awarded as exemplary damages. According, petitioner is hereby ordered

to pay private respondent Php99,000,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages; P50,000.00 as exemplary damage and the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.

CIRILO R. VALLES v. COMELEC and ROSALIND YBASCO LOPEZ G.R. No. 137000, August 9, 2000 J. Purisima, En Banc This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, pursuant to Section 2, Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing Resolutions dated July 17, 1998 and January 15, 1999, respectively, of the Commission on Elections in SPA No. 98-336, dismissing the petition for disqualification filed by the herein petitioner, Cirilo R. Valles, against private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, in the May 1998 elections for governor of Davao Oriental. Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. In 1949, at the age of fifteen, she left Australia and came to settle in the Philippines. On June 27, 1952, she was married to Leopoldo Lopez, a Filipino citizen, at the Malate Catholic Church in Manila. Since then, she has continuously participated in the electoral process not only as a voter but as a candidate, as well. She served as Provincial Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental. In 1992, she ran for and was elected governor of Davao Oriental. Her election was contested by her opponent, Gil Taojo, Jr., in a petition for quo warranto, docketed as EPC No. 92-54, alleging as ground therefor her alleged Australian citizenship. However, finding no sufficient proof that respondent had renounced her Philippine citizenship, the Commission on Elections en banc dismissed the petition, ratiocinating thus: "A cursory reading of the records of this case vis-a-vis the impugned resolution shows that respondent was able to produce documentary proofs of the Filipino citizenship of her late father... and consequently, prove her own citizenship and filiation by virtue of the Principle of Jus Sanguinis, the perorations of the petitioner to the contrary notwithstanding. On the other hand, except for the three alleged important documents no other evidence substantial in nature surfaced to confirm the allegations of petitioner that respondent is an Australian citizen and not a Filipino. Express renunciation of citizenship as a mode of losing citizenship under Commonwealth Act No. 63 is an equivocal and deliberate act with full awareness of its significance and consequence. The evidence adduced by petitioner are inadequate, nay meager, to prove that respondent contemplated renunciation of her Filipino citizenship." In the 1995 local elections, respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental. Her opponent, Francisco Rabat, filed a petition for disqualification, docketed as SPA No. 95-066 before the COMELEC, First Division,

contesting her Filipino citizenship but the said petition was likewise dismissed by the COMELEC, reiterating substantially its decision in EPC 92-54. The citizenship of private respondent was once again raised as an issue when she ran for re-election as governor of Davao Oriental in the May 11, 1998 elections. Her candidacy was questioned by the herein petitioner, Cirilo Valles, in SPA No. 98-336. On July 17, 1998, the COMELEC’s First Division came out with a Resolution dismissing the petition, and disposing as follows: Assuming arguendo that res judicata does not apply and We are to dispose the instant case on the merits trying it de novo, the above table definitely shows that petitioner herein has presented no new evidence to disturb the Resolution of this Commission in SPA No. 95-066. The present petition merely restates the same matters and incidents already passed upon by this Commission not just in 1995 Resolution but likewise in the Resolution of EPC No. 92-54. Not having put forth any new evidence and matter substantial in nature, persuasive in character or sufficiently provocative to compel reversal of such Resolutions, the dismissal of the present petition follows as a matter of course. WHEREFORE, premises considered and there being no new matters and issues tendered, We find no convincing reason or impressive explanation to disturb and reverse the Resolutions promulgated by this Commission in EPC 9254 and SPA. 95-066. This Commission RESOLVES as it hereby RESOLVES to DISMISS the present petition. SO ORDERED. Petitioner interposed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution but to no avail. The same was denied by the COMELEC in its en banc Resolution of January 15, 1999. Undaunted, petitioner found his way to this Court via the present petition; questioning the citizenship of private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. The Commission on Elections ruled that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen and therefore, qualified to run for a public office because (1) her father, Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino citizen, and by virtue of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen under the 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) she was married to a Filipino, thereby making her also a Filipino citizen ipso jure under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473; (3) and that, she renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and her Australian passport was accordingly cancelled as certified to by the Australian Embassy in Manila; and (4) furthermore, there are the COMELEC Resolutions in EPC No. 92-54 and SPA Case No. 95-066, declaring her a Filipino citizen duly qualified to run for the elective position of Davao Oriental governor.

Petitioner, on the other hand, maintains that the private respondent is an Australian citizen, placing reliance on the admitted facts that: (a)

In 1988, private respondent registered herself with the Bureau of Immigration as an Australian national and was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. 404695 dated September 19, 1988;

(b)

On even date, she applied for the issuance of an Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), and

(c)

She was issued Australian Passport No. H700888 on March 3, 1988.

Petitioner theorizes that under the aforestated facts and circumstances, the private respondent had renounced her Filipino citizenship. He contends that in her application for alien certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence, private respondent expressly declared under oath that she was a citizen or subject of Australia; and said declaration forfeited her Philippine citizenship, and operated to disqualify her to run for elective office. As regards the COMELEC’s finding that private respondent had renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992 before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia and had her Australian passport cancelled on February 11, 1992, as certified to by the Australian Embassy here in Manila, petitioner argues that the said acts did not automatically restore the status of private respondent as a Filipino citizen. According to petitioner, for the private respondent to reacquire Philippine citizenship she must comply with the mandatory requirements for repatriation under Republic Act 8171; and the election of private respondent to public office did not mean the restoration of her Filipino citizenship since the private respondent was not legally repatriated. Coupled with her alleged renunciation of Australian citizenship, private respondent has effectively become a stateless person and as such, is disqualified to run for a public office in the Philippines; petitioner concluded. Petitioner theorizes further that the Commission on Elections erred in applying the principle of res judicata to the case under consideration; citing the ruling in Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration, that: Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. The petition is unmeritorious.

The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis. Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship of the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of jus soli which determines nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Napier Terrace, Broome, Western Australia, to the spouses, Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa Marquez, an Australian. Historically, this was a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the principal organic acts by which the United States governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones Law. Among others, these laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine islands. The Philippine Bill of 1902 defined Philippine citizens as:

Section 4 all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in the Philippine Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight. The Jones Law, on the other hand, provides:

Section 2 That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such others as have since become citizens of some other country: Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who cannot come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws of the United States if residing therein. Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be Philippine

citizens. Private respondent’s father, Telesforo Ybasco, was born on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the Registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were the laws in force at the time of her birth, Telesforo’s daughter, herein private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is likewise a citizen of the Philippines. The signing into law of the 1935 Philippine Constitution has established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship, to wit: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. So also, the principle of jus sanguinis, which confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship, was subsequently retained under the 1973and 1987Constitutions. Thus, the herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. Petitioner also contends that even on the assumption that the private respondent is a Filipino citizen, she has nonetheless renounced her Philippine citizenship. To buttress this contention, petitioner cited private respondent’s application for an Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR), on September 19, 1988, and the issuance to her of an Australian passport on March 3, 1988. Under Commonwealth Act No. 63, a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship: (1) By naturalization in a foreign country; (2) By express renunciation of citizenship;

(3) By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty-one years of age or more; (4) By accepting commission in the military, naval or air service of a foreign country; (5) By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization; (6) By having been declared by competent authority, a deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war, unless subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted: and (7) In case of a woman, upon her marriage, to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in force in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality. In order that citizenship may be lost by renunciation, such renunciation must be express. Petitioner’s contention that the application of private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her Australian passport, is bereft of merit. This issue was put to rest in the case of Aznar vs. COMELECand in the more recent case of Mercado vs.

Manzano and COMELEC.

In the case of Aznar, the Court ruled that the mere fact that respondent Osmena was a holder of a certificate stating that he is an American did not mean that he is no longer a Filipino, and that an application for an alien certificate of registration was not tantamount to renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. And, in Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC, it was held that the fact that respondent Manzano was registered as an American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and was holding an American passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor of Makati, were just assertions of his American nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. Thus, the mere fact that private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was a holder of an Australian passport and had an alien certificate of registration are not acts constituting an effective renunciation of citizenship and do not militate against her claim of Filipino citizenship. For renunciation to effectively result in the loss of citizenship, the same must be express.As held by this court in the aforecited case of Aznar, an application for an alien certificate of registration does not amount to an express renunciation or repudiation of one’s citizenship. The application of the herein private respondent for an alien certificate of registration, and her holding of an Australian passport, as in the case of Mercado vs. Manzano, were mere acts of assertion of her Australian citizenship before she effectively renounced the same. Thus, at the most, private respondent had dual citizenship - she was an Australian and a Filipino, as well. Moreover, under Commonwealth Act 63, the fact that a child of Filipino parent/s was born in another country has not been included as a ground for losing one’s Philippine

citizenship. Since private respondent did not lose or renounce her Philippine citizenship, petitioner’s claim that respondent must go through the process of repatriation does not hold water. Petitioner also maintains that even on the assumption that the private respondent had dual citizenship, still, she is disqualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental; citing Section 40 of Republic Act 7160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which states: Section 40. Disqualifications. — The following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (d) Those with dual citizenship; Again, petitioner’s contention is untenable. In the aforecited case of Mercado vs. Manzano, the Court clarified "dual citizenship" as used in the Local Government Code and reconciled the same with Article IV, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution on dual allegiance.Recognizing situations in which a Filipino citizen may, without performing any act, and as an involuntary consequence of the conflicting laws of different countries, be also a citizen of another state, the Court explained that dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual allegiance. The Court succinctly pronounced: The phrase “dual citizenship” in R.A. No. 7160 and in R.A. No. 7854 must be understood as referring to ‘dual allegiance’. Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Thus, the fact that the private respondent had dual citizenship did not automatically disqualify her from running for a public office. Furthermore, it was ruled that for candidates with dual citizenship, it is enough that they elect Philippine citizenship upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy, to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship. The filing of a certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as a dual citizen. This is so because in the certificate of candidacy, one declares that he/she is a Filipino citizen and that he/she will support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. Such declaration, which is under oath, operates as an effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. Therefore, when the herein private respondent filed her certificate of candidacy in 1992, such fact alone terminated her Australian citizenship. Then, too, it is significant to note that on January 15 1992, private respondent executed a Declaration of Renunciation of Australian Citizenship, duly registered in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of Australia on May 12, 1992. And, as a result, on February 11, 1992, the Australian passport of private respondent was cancelled, as certified to by Second Secretary Richard F. Munro of the Embassy of

Australia in Manila. As aptly appreciated by the COMELEC, the aforesaid acts were enough to settle the issue of the alleged dual citizenship of Rosalind Ybasco Lopez. Since her renunciation was effective, petitioner’s claim that private respondent must go through the whole process of repatriation holds no water. Petitioner maintains further that when citizenship is raised as an issue in judicial or administrative proceedings, the resolution or decision thereon is generally not considered res judicata in any subsequent proceeding challenging the same; citing the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration.He insists that the same issue of citizenship may be threshed out anew. Petitioner is correct insofar as the general rule is concerned, i.e. the principle of res judicata generally does not apply in cases hinging on the issue of citizenship. However, in the case of Burca vs. Republic,an exception to this general rule was recognized. The Court ruled in that case that in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship, the following must be present:

(1) a person’s citizenship 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 on citizenship is affirmed by this Court. Although the general rule was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, though not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler.Indeed, there appears sufficient basis to rely on the prior rulings of the Commission on Elections in SPA. No. 95-066 and EPC 92-54 which resolved the issue of citizenship in favor of the herein private respondent. The evidence adduced by petitioner is substantially the same evidence presented in these two prior cases. Petitioner failed to show any new evidence or supervening event to warrant a reversal of such prior resolutions. However, the procedural issue notwithstanding, considered on the merits, the petition cannot prosper. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the COMELEC Resolutions are AFFIRMED. Private respondent Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is hereby adjudged qualified to run for governor of Davao Oriental. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.

ERNESTO MERCADO v. EDUARDO MANZANO and COMELEC G.R. No. 135083 May 26, 1999 Per J. Mendoza, En Banc Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. The other one was Gabriel V. Daza III. The results of the election were as follows: Eduardo B. Manzano 103,853 Ernesto S. Mercado 100,894 Gabriel V. Daza III 54,275 The proclamation of private respondent was suspended in view of a pending petition for disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that private respondent was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. In its resolution, dated May 7, 1998, the Second Division of the COMELEC granted the petition of Mamaril and ordered the cancellation of the certificate of candidacy of private respondent on the ground that he is a dual citizen and, under §40(d) of the Local Government Code, persons with dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective position. The COMELEC's Second Division said: What is presented before the Commission is a petition for disqualification of Eduardo Barrios Manzano as candidate for the office of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May 11, 1998 elections. The petition is based on the ground that the respondent is an American citizen based on the record of the Bureau of Immigration and misrepresented himself as a natural-born Filipino citizen. In his answer to the petition filed on April 27, 1998, the respondent admitted that he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration under Alien Certificate of Registration No. B-31632 and alleged that he is a Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a Filipino father and a Filipino mother. He was born in the United States, San Francisco, California, September 14, 1955, and is considered in American citizen under US Laws. But notwithstanding his registration as an American citizen, he did not lose his Filipino citizenship. Judging from the foregoing facts, it would appear that respondent Manzano is born a Filipino and a US citizen. In other words, he holds dual citizenship. The question presented is whether under our laws, he is disqualified from the position for which he filed his certificate of candidacy. Is he eligible for the office he seeks to be elected? Under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, those holding dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective local position.

WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby declares the respondent Eduardo Barrios Manzano DISQUALIFIED as candidate for Vice-Mayor of Makati City. On May 8, 1998, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion remained pending even until after the election held on May 11, 1998. Accordingly, pursuant to Omnibus Resolution No. 3044, dated May 10, 1998, of the COMELEC, the board of canvassers tabulated the votes cast for vice mayor of Makati City but suspended the proclamation of the winner. On May 19, 1998, petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. Petitioner's motion was opposed by private respondent. The motion was not resolved. Instead, on August 31, 1998, the COMELEC en banc rendered its resolution. Voting 4 to 1, with one commissioner abstaining, the COMELEC en banc reversed the ruling of its Second Division and declared private respondent qualified to run for vice mayor of the City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. The pertinent portions of the resolution of the COMELEC en banc read: As aforesaid, respondent Eduardo Barrios Manzano was born in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. He acquired US citizenship by operation of the United States Constitution and laws under the principle ofjus soli. He was also a natural born Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935 Philippine Constitution, as his father and mother were Filipinos at the time of his birth. At the age of six (6), his parents brought him to the Philippines using an American passport as travel document. His parents also registered him as an alien with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration. He was issued an alien certificate of registration. This, however, did not result in the loss of his Philippine citizenship, as he did not renounce Philippine citizenship and did not take an oath of allegiance to the United States. It is an undisputed fact that when respondent attained the age of majority, he registered himself as a voter, and voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998, which effectively renounced his US citizenship under American law. Under Philippine law, he no longer had U.S. citizenship. At the time of the May 11, 1998 elections, the resolution of the Second Division, adopted on May 7, 1998, was not yet final. Respondent Manzano obtained the highest number of votes among the candidates for vice-mayor of Makati City, garnering 103,853 votes over his closest rival, Ernesto S. Mercado, who obtained 100,894 votes, or a margin of 2,959 votes. Gabriel Daza III obtained third place with 54,275 votes. In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of the popular choice than be embroiled in complex

legal issues involving private international law which may well be settled before the highest court. WHEREFORE, the Commission en banc hereby REVERSES the resolution of the Second Division ordering the cancellation of the respondent's certificate of candidacy. We declare respondent Eduardo Luis Barrios Manzano to be QUALIFIED as a candidate for the position of vice-mayor of Makati City in the May 11, 1998, elections. ACCORDINGLY, the Commission directs the Makati City Board of Canvassers, upon proper notice to the parties, to RECONVENE and PROCLAIM the respondent Eduardo Luis Barrios Manzano as the winning candidate for vice-mayor of Makati City. Pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the board of canvassers, on the evening of August 31, 1998, proclaimed private respondent as vice mayor of the City of Makati. This is a petition for certiorari seeking to set aside the aforesaid resolution of the COMELEC en banc and to declare private respondent disqualified to hold the office of vice mayor of Makati City. Petitioner contends that — The COMELEC en banc ERRED in holding that: A.

Under Philippine law, Manzano was no longer a U.S. citizen when he: 1.

He renounced his U.S. citizenship when he attained the age of majority when he was already 37 years old; and,

2.

He renounced his U.S. citizenship when he (merely) registered himself as a voter and voted in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998.

B.

Manzano is qualified to run for and or hold the elective office of ViceMayor of the City of Makati;

C.

At the time of the May 11, 1998 elections, the resolution of the Second Division adopted on 7 May 1998 was not yet final so that, effectively, petitioner may not be declared the winner even assuming that Manzano is disqualified to run for and hold the elective office of Vice-Mayor of the City of Makati.

We first consider the threshold procedural issue raised by private respondent Manzano — whether petitioner Mercado his personality to bring this suit considering that he was not an original party in the case for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mamaril nor was petitioner's motion for leave to intervene granted. I.

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO BRING THIS SUIT

Private respondent cites the following provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC in support of his claim that petitioner has no right to intervene and, therefore, cannot bring this suit to set aside the ruling denying his motion for intervention: Section 1. When proper and when may be permitted to intervene. — Any person allowed to initiate an action or proceeding may, before or during the trial of an action or proceeding, be permitted by the Commission, in its discretion to intervene in such action or proceeding, if he has legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or when he is so situated as to be adversely affected by such action or proceeding. Section 3. Discretion of Commission. — In allowing or disallowing a motion for intervention, the Commission or the Division, in the exercise of its discretion, shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate action or proceeding. Private respondent argues that petitioner has neither legal interest in the matter in litigation nor an interest to protect because he is "a defeated candidate for the vicemayoralty post of Makati City who cannot be proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati City if the private respondent be ultimately disqualified by final and executory judgment." The flaw in this argument is it assumes that, at the time petitioner sought to intervene in the proceedings before the COMELEC, there had already been a proclamation of the results of the election for the vice mayoralty contest for Makati City, on the basis of which petitioner came out only second to private respondent. The fact, however, is that there had been no proclamation at that time. Certainly, petitioner had, and still has, an interest in ousting private respondent from the race at the time he sought to intervene. The rule in Labo v. COMELEC, reiterated in several cases, only applies to cases in which the election of the respondent is contested, and the question is whether one who placed second to the disqualified candidate may be declared the winner. In the present case, at the time petitioner filed a "Motion for Leave to File Intervention" on May 20, 1998, there had been no proclamation of the winner, and petitioner's purpose was precisely to have private respondent disqualified "from running for [an] elective local position" under §40(d) of R.A. No. 7160. If Ernesto Mamaril (who originally instituted the disqualification proceedings), a registered voter of Makati City,

was competent to bring the action, so was petitioner since the latter was a rival candidate for vice mayor of Makati City. Nor is petitioner's interest in the matter in litigation any less because he filed a motion for intervention only on May 20, 1998, after private respondent had been shown to have garnered the highest number of votes among the candidates for vice mayor. That petitioner had a right to intervene at that stage of the proceedings for the disqualification against private respondent is clear from §6 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as the Electoral Reform Law of 1987, which provides: Any candidate who his been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. Under this provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has yet been no final judgment rendered. The failure of the COMELEC en banc to resolve petitioner's motion for intervention was tantamount to a denial of the motion, justifying petitioner in filing the instant petition for certiorari. As the COMELEC en banc instead decided the merits of the case, the present petition properly deals not only with the denial of petitioner's motion for intervention but also with the substantive issues respecting private respondent's alleged disqualification on the ground of dual citizenship. This brings us to the next question, namely, whether private respondent Manzano possesses dual citizenship and, if so, whether he is disqualified from being a candidate for vice mayor of Makati City. II. DUAL CITIZENSHIP AS A GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION The disqualification of private respondent Manzano is being sought under §40 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), which declares as "disqualified from running for any elective local position: . . . (d) Those with dual citizenship." This provision is incorporated in the Charter of the City of Makati. Invoking the maxim dura lex sed lex, petitioner, as well as the Solicitor General, who sides with him in this case, contends that through §40(d) of the Local Government Code, Congress has "command[ed] in explicit terms the ineligibility of persons possessing dual allegiance to hold local elective office."

To begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the Philippines to possess dual citizenship: (1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign countries which follow the principle of jus soli; (2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their father's' country such children are citizens of that country; (3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship. There may be other situations in which a citizen of the Philippines may, without performing any act, be also a citizen of another state; but the above cases are clearly possible given the constitutional provisions on citizenship. Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individual's volition. With respect to dual allegiance, Article IV, §5 of the Constitution provides: "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law." This provision was included in the 1987 Constitution at the instance of Commissioner Blas F. Ople who explained its necessity as follows: I want to draw attention to the fact that dual allegiance is not dual citizenship. I have circulated a memorandum to the Bernas Committee according to which a dual allegiance — and I reiterate a dual allegiance — is larger and more threatening than that of mere double citizenship which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, never insidious. That is often a function of the accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. And so, I do not question double citizenship at all. What we would like the Committee to consider is to take constitutional cognizance of the problem of dual allegiance. For example, we all know what happens in the triennial elections of the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce which consists of about 600 chapters all over the country. There

is a Peking ticket, as well as a Taipei ticket. Not widely known is the fact chat the Filipino-Chinese community is represented in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China in Taiwan. And until recently, sponsor might recall, in Mainland China in the People's Republic of China, they have the Associated Legislative Council for overseas Chinese wherein all of Southeast Asia including some European and Latin countries were represented, which was dissolved after several years because of diplomatic friction. At that time, the Filipino-Chinese were also represented in that Overseas Council. When I speak of double allegiance, therefore, I speak of this unsettled kind of allegiance of Filipinos, of citizens who are already Filipinos but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound by a second allegiance, either to Peking or Taiwan. I also took close note of the concern expressed by some Commissioners yesterday, including Commissioner Villacorta, who were concerned about the lack of guarantees of thorough assimilation, and especially Commissioner Concepcion who has always been worried about minority claims on our natural resources. Dull allegiance can actually siphon scarce national capital to Taiwan, Singapore, China or Malaysia, and this is already happening. Some of the great commercial places in downtown Taipei are Filipino-owned, owned by FilipinoChinese — it is of common knowledge in Manila. It can mean a tragic capital outflow when we have to endure a capital famine which also means economic stagnation, worsening unemployment and social unrest. And so, this is exactly what we ask — that the Committee kindly consider incorporating a new section, probably Section 5, in the article on Citizenship which will read as follows: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO CITIZENSHIP AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW. In another session of the Commission, Ople spoke on the problem of these citizens with dual allegiance, thus: A significant number of Commissioners expressed their concern about dual citizenship in the sense that it implies a double allegiance under a double sovereignty which some of us who spoke then in a freewheeling debate thought would be repugnant to the sovereignty which pervades the Constitution and to citizenship itself which implies a uniqueness and which elsewhere in the Constitution is defined in terms of rights and obligations exclusive to that citizenship including, of course, the obligation to rise to the defense of the State when it is threatened, and back of this, Commissioner Bernas, is, of course, the concern for national security. In the course of those debates, I think

some noted the fact that as a result of the wave of naturalizations since the decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China was made in 1975, a good number of these naturalized Filipinos still routinely go to Taipei every October 10; and it is asserted that some of them do renew their oath of allegiance to a foreign government maybe just to enter into the spirit of the occasion when the anniversary of the Sun Yat-Sen Republic is commemorated. And so, I have detected a genuine and deep concern about double citizenship, with its attendant risk of double allegiance which is repugnant to our sovereignty and national security. I appreciate what the Committee said that this could be left to the determination of a future legislature. But considering the scale of the problem, the real impact on the security of this country, arising from, let us say, potentially great numbers of double citizens professing double allegiance, will the Committee entertain a proposed amendment at the proper time that will prohibit, in effect, or regulate double citizenship? Clearly, in including §5 in Article IV on citizenship, the concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Hence, the phrase "dual citizenship" in R.A. No. 7160, §40(d) and in R.A. No. 7854, §20 must be understood as referring to "dual allegiance." Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different states. As Joaquin G. Bernas, one of the most perceptive members of the Constitutional Commission, pointed out: "[D]ual citizenship is just a reality imposed on us because we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other countries. We recognize a child of a Filipino mother. But whether she is considered a citizen of another country is something completely beyond our control." By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same time forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. That is of no moment as the following discussion on §40(d) between Senators Enrile and Pimentel clearly shows: SENATOR ENRILE: Mr. President, I would like to ask clarification of line 41, page 17: "Any person with dual citizenship" is disqualified to run for any elective local position. Under the present Constitution, Mr. President, someone whose mother is a citizen of the Philippines but his father is a foreigner is a natural-born citizen

of the Republic. There is no requirement that such a natural born citizen, upon reaching the age of majority, must elect or give up Philippine citizenship. On the assumption that this person would carry two passports, one belonging to the country of his or her father and one belonging to the Republic of the Philippines, may such a situation disqualify the person to run for a local government position? SENATOR PIMENTEL: To my mind, Mr. President, it only means that at the moment when he would want to run for public office, he has to repudiate one of his citizenships. SENATOR ENRILE: Suppose he carries only a Philippine passport but the country of origin or the country of the father claims that person, nevertheless, as a citizen? No one can renounce. There are such countries in the world. SENATOR PIMENTEL: Well, the very fact that he is running for public office would, in effect, be an election for him of his desire to be considered as a Filipino citizen. SENATOR ENRILE: But, precisely, Mr. President, the Constitution does not require an election. Under the Constitution, a person whose mother is a citizen of the Philippines is, at birth, a citizen without any overt act to claim the citizenship. SENATOR PIMENTEL: Yes. What we are saying, Mr. President, is: Under the Gentleman's example, if he does not renounce his other citizenship, then he is opening himself to question. So, if he is really interested to run, the first thing he should do is to say in the Certificate of Candidacy that: "I am a Filipino citizen, and I have only one citizenship." SENATOR ENRILE: But we are talking from the viewpoint of Philippine law, Mr. President. He will always have one citizenship, and that is the citizenship invested upon him or her in the Constitution of the Republic. SENATOR PIMENTEL: That is true, Mr. President. But if he exercises acts that will prove that he also acknowledges other citizenships, then he will probably fall under this disqualification. This is similar to the requirement that an applicant for naturalization must renounce "all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty" of which at the time he is a subject or citizen before he can be issued a certificate of naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines. In Parado v. Republic, it was held: When a person applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an oath that he renounces, his loyalty to any other country or government and solemnly

declares that he owes his allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, the condition imposed by law is satisfied and compiled with. The determination whether such renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an exclusive prerogative of our courts. The latter should apply the law duly enacted by the legislative department of the Republic. No foreign law may or should interfere with its operation and application. If the requirement of the Chinese Law of Nationality were to be read into our Naturalization Law, we would be applying not what our legislative department has deemed it wise to require, but what a foreign government has thought or intended to exact. That, of course, is absurd. It must be resisted by all means and at all cost. It would be a brazen encroachment upon the sovereign will and power of the people of this Republic. III. PETITIONER'S ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP The record shows that private respondent was born in San Francisco, California on September 4, 1955, of Filipino parents. Since the Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, while the United States follows the doctrine of jus soli, the parties agree that, at birth at least, he was a national both of the Philippines and of the United States. However, the COMELEC en banc held that, by participating in Philippine elections in 1992, 1995, and 1998, private respondent "effectively renounced his U.S. citizenship under American law," so that now he is solely a Philippine national. Petitioner challenges this ruling. He argues that merely taking part in Philippine elections is not sufficient evidence of renunciation and that, in any event, as the alleged renunciation was made when private respondent was already 37 years old, it was ineffective as it should have been made when he reached the age of majority. In holding that by voting in Philippine elections private respondent renounced his American citizenship, the COMELEC must have in mind §349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States, which provided that "A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: . . . (e) Voting in a political election in a foreign state or participating in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory." To be sure this provision was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk as beyond the power given to the U.S. Congress to regulate foreign relations. However, by filing a certificate of candidacy when he ran for his present post, private respondent elected Philippine citizenship and in effect renounced his American citizenship. Private respondent's certificate of candidacy, filed on March 27, 1998, contained the following statements made under oath: 6. I am a natural-born Filipino citizen. 10. I am a registered voter of Precinct No. 747-A, Barangay San Lorenzo, City/Municipality of Makati.

11. I am not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a foreign country. 12. I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will support and defend the constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that I will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the republic of the Philippines; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I hereby certify that the facts stated herein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge. The filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. Thus, in Frivaldo v. COMELEC it was held: It is not disputed that on January 20, 1983 Frivaldo became an American. Would the retroactivity of his repatriation not effectively give him dual citizenship, which under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code would disqualify him "from running for any elective local position?" We answer this question in the negative, as there is cogent reason to hold that Frivaldo was really STATELESS at the time he took said oath of allegiance and even before that, when he ran for governor in 1988. In his Comment, Frivaldo wrote that he "had long renounced and had long abandoned his American citizenship — long before May 8, 1995. At best, Frivaldo was stateless in the interim — when he abandoned and renounced his US citizenship but before he was repatriated to his Filipino citizenship." On this point, we quote from the assailed Resolution dated December 19, 1995: By the laws of the United States, petitioner Frivaldo lost his American citizenship when he took his oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government when he ran for Governor in 1988, in 1992, and in 1995. Every certificate of candidacy contains an oath of allegiance to the Philippine Government. These factual findings that Frivaldo has lost his foreign nationality long before the elections of 1995 have not been effectively rebutted by Lee. Furthermore, it is basic that such findings of the Commission are conclusive upon this Court, absent any showing of capriciousness or arbitrariness or abuse. There is, therefore, no merit in petitioner's contention that the oath of allegiance contained in private respondent's certificate of candidacy is insufficient to constitute renunciation that, to be effective, such renunciation should have been made upon private respondent reaching the age of majority since no law requires the election of Philippine citizenship to be made upon majority age.

Finally, much is made of the fact that private respondent admitted that he is registered as an American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation and that he holds an American passport which he used in his last travel to the United States on April 22, 1997. There is no merit in this. Until the filing of his certificate of candidacy on March 21, 1998, he had dual citizenship. The acts attributed to him can be considered simply as the assertion of his American nationality before the termination of his American citizenship. What this Court said in Aznar v. COMELEC applies mutatis mundatis to private respondent in the case at bar: Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he has a Certificate staring he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino. The Certification that he is an American does not mean that he is not still a Filipino, possessed as he is, of both nationalities or citizenships. Indeed, there is no express renunciation here of Philippine citizenship; truth to tell, there is even no implied renunciation of said citizenship. When We consider that the renunciation needed to lose Philippine citizenship must be "express," it stands to reason that there can be no such loss of Philippine citizenship when there is no renunciation, either "express" or "implied." To recapitulate, by declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, private respondent has, as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen. On the other hand, private respondent's oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his undertaking made under oath. Should he betray that trust, there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, we sustained the denial of entry into the country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal of his Portuguese passport and declared in commercial documents executed abroad that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction can be taken against any one who, in electing Philippine citizenship, renounces his foreign nationality, but subsequently does some act constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.