YU vs.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
GR No. L-83882, January 24, 1989
FACTS:
Petitioner
Yu was originally issued a Portuguese passport in 1971. On February 10, 1978,
he was naturalized as a Philippine citizen. Despite his naturalization, he applied
for and was issued Portuguese Passport by the Consular Section of the
Portuguese Embassy in Tokyo on July 21, 1981. Said Consular Office certifies
that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986. He also declared his
nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he signed, specifically, the
Companies registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd. filed in Hongkong sometime in April
1980.
The
CID detained Yu pending his deportation case. Yu, in turn, filed a petition for
habeas corpus. An internal resolution of 7 November 1988 referred the case to
the Court en banc. The Court en banc denied the petition. When his Motion for
Reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not petitioner’s acts constitute renunciation of his Philippine citizenship
HELD:
Express
renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is made known distinctly and explicitly
and not left to inference or implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and
legal capacity, after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization
as a Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese
citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and represented
himself as such in official documents even after he had become a naturalized
Philippine citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship
is grossly inconsistent with his maintenance of Philippine citizenship.
While
normally the question of whether or not a person has renounced his Philippine
citizenship should be heard before a trial court of law in adversary
proceedings, this has become unnecessary as this Court, no less, upon the
insistence of petitioner, had to look into the facts and satisfy itself on
whether or not petitioner's claim to continued Philippine citizenship is
meritorious.
Philippine
citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or were to be displayed
when required and suppressed when convenient.
0
Comments
