Angat vs.
Republic
G.R. No. 132244. September 14, 1999.
FACTS:
Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural born citizen of the Philippines until he lost his citizenship
by naturalization in the United States of America.
Now residing at Marikina City, Angat filed on 11 March 1996 before the RTC of Marikina City a
petition to regain his status as a citizen of the Philippines under Commonwealth Act No. 63,
Republic Act No. 965 and Republic Act No. 2630.
On 13 June 1996, petitioner sought to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines pursuant to R.A. 8171.
The motion was denied by the trial judge.
Another motion filed by petitioner on to have the denial reconsidered was found to be
meritorious by the court a quo.
The petitioner is ordered to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines
pursuant to R.A. 8171.
On 19 March 1997, a Manifestation and Motion (virtually a motion for reconsideration) filed by
the OSG asserted that the petition itself should have been dismissed by the court a quo for lack
of jurisdiction because the proper forum for it was the Special Committee on Naturalization
consistently with Administrative Order No. 285 (“AO 285”), dated 22 August 1996 issued by
President Fidel V. Ramos. AO 285 had tasked the Special Committee on Naturalization to be the
implementing agency of R.A. 8171. The motion was found to be well taken by the trial court.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Office of the Solicitor General. The
orders of this Court are set aside and the herein petition is ordered DISMISSED on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to its re-filing before the Special Committee on
Naturalization.
A motion for reconsideration, filed by Petitioner, questioned the aforequoted order asseverating
that since his petition was filed on 14 March 1996, or months before the Special Committee on
Naturalization was constituted by the President under AO 285 on 22 August 1996, the court a
quo had the authority to take cognizance of the case.
MR was denied.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court (has) seriously erred in dismissing the petition by giving
retroactive effect to Administrative Order No. 285, absent a provision on Retroactive Application.
HELD: No.
The Court ruled that the contention is not meritorious.
Republic Act No. 8171, which has lapsed into law on 23 October 1995, is an act providing for the
repatriation (a) of Filipino women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and (b)
of natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic
necessity.
A petition for repatriation should be filed with the Special Committee on Naturalization and not with the
Regional Trial Court which has no jurisdiction thereover.— Indeed, the Committee was reactivated on 08
June 1995; hence, when petitioner filed his petition on 11 March 1996, the Special Committee on
Naturalization constituted pursuant to LOI No. 270 under P.D. No. 725 was in place. Administrative
Order 285, promulgated on 22 August 1996relative to R.A. No. 8171, in effect, was merely then a
confirmatory issuance. The Office of the Solicitor General was right in maintaining that Angat’s petition
should have been filed with the Committee, aforesaid, and not with the RTC which had no jurisdiction
thereover. The court’s order of 04 October 1996 was thereby null and void, and it did not acquire finality
nor could be a source of right on the part of petitioner.
Republic Acts Nos. 965 and 2630 only apply to persons who lost their citizenship by rendering service to,
or accepting commission in, the armed forces of an allied foreign country or the armed forces of the
United States of America. It should also be noteworthy that the petition in Case No. N-96-03-MK was
one for repatriation, and it was thus incorrect for petitioner to initially invoke Republic Act No. 965 and
R.A. No. 2630 since these laws could only apply to persons who had lost their citizenship by rendering
service to, or accepting commission in, the armed forces of an allied foreign country or the armed forces
of the United States of America, a factual matter not alleged in the petition. Parenthetically, under these
statutes, the person desiring to reacquire Philippine citizenship would not even be required to file a
petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to register that fact with the civil registry in the place of his residence or where he had
last resided in the Philippines.
