By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
This is the sad story of Renato, a Filipino from Oriental Mindoro, who migrated to Canada in 1974, and became a Canadian by naturalization. After their retirement in 2000, he and his wife went back to Mindoro. They bought a lot beside the beach, where they built a house. In 2004, they learned that a portion of the lot is public land and part of the salvage zone. In April 12, 2007, Renato filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) over this lot with the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO). In his application, he stated he is a Filipino.
Editha opposed the MLA. She is a member of the family, which had sold him the lot. She said that Renato, a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed against him a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents. On Oct. 11, 2007 or 6 months after filing his MLA, Renato re-acquired his Filipino citizenship, under Republic Act No. 9225. But on Jan. 8, 2008, the Provincial Prosecutor found probable cause to indict him. After his petition for review was denied by the Department of Justice, an Information for falsification was then filed against him before the Municipal Trial Court, which issued a warrant of arrest. On June 3, 2008, the CENRO rejected his MLA, stating that his re-acquisition of citizenship did not cure the defect, which was void ab initio.
Before his arrest, Renato filed a Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause, which the MTC denied. After his motion for reconsideration was denied, he filed a petition for review with the Regional Trial Court, which also denied the same in its Order dated Oct. 8, 2011. Aggrieved, he went to the Supreme Court on a petition for review.
Renato argued, among others, that the lower court disregarded the fact he is a “natural-born Filipino citizen, and that by re-acquiring the same under RA 9225 he was by legal fiction ‘deemed not to have lost’ it at the time of his naturalization in Canada and through the time when he was said to have falsely claimed Philippine citizenship.”
The Court denied Renato’s petition. It affirmed the Order dated Oct. 8, 2011 of the RTC. The Court said that RA 9225 distinguishes between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of RA 9225. “Those who were naturalized in a foreign country, x x x shall be deemed to have re-acquired their citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. x x x, RA 9225 amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who became naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual citizenship, and also provides for the procedure for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship. In the case of those who became foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect, they shall retain their Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the new law.”
It explained that Renato became “a naturalized Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of RA 9225, x x x. As the new law allows dual citizenship, he was able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance.”
It held that Renato “made the untruthful statements in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen. Under CA 63, the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization in a foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses his Philippine citizenship. While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 six months later, the falsification was already a consummated act, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of falsification of public documents under Art. 172, paragraph 1“ of the Revised Penal Code. (Renato M. David vs. Editha A. Agbay and People of the Philippines, GR 199113, March 18, 2015).
I know there are lots of Renatos out there, who upon retirement in a foreign land, wish to spend their life-savings in this beautiful country. Just be careful, comply with RA 9225, select your friends wisely, and watch the golden sunrise and the fading sunset on a beautiful beach somewhere in the Philippines – in a house you can truly call your own.
