Scribd
Upload
82 views2 pages

Tabasa v. CA 500 SCRA 9

Tabasa claimed he reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171, but the Court ruled he was not eligible for repatriation. RA 8171 only allows repatriation for Filipino women who lost citizenship through marriage, and natural-born Filipinos who lost citizenship due to political or economic necessity. Tabasa lost his citizenship through his father's naturalization when Tabasa was a minor. The Court said RA 8171's privilege only applies to minors at the time of the parent's petition, which Tabasa was not. Tabasa also could not claim his father left due to political or economic necessity. Therefore, Tabasa had not validly reacquired citizenship and could be deported as an und

Uploaded by

Estee Xooh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views2 pages

Tabasa v. CA 500 SCRA 9

Tabasa claimed he reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171, but the Court ruled he was not eligible for repatriation. RA 8171 only allows repatriation for Filipino women who lost citizenship through marriage, and natural-born Filipinos who lost citizenship due to political or economic necessity. Tabasa lost his citizenship through his father's naturalization when Tabasa was a minor. The Court said RA 8171's privilege only applies to minors at the time of the parent's petition, which Tabasa was not. Tabasa also could not claim his father left due to political or economic necessity. Therefore, Tabasa had not validly reacquired citizenship and could be deported as an und

Uploaded by

Estee Xooh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

125793 August 29, 2006


JOEVANIE ARELLANO TABASA, Petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION and DEPORTATION and WILSON
SOLUREN, Respondents.
VELASCO, JR., J.:

FACTS:
When he was 7 years old, Joevanie A. Tabasa acquired American citizenship when his father became a
naturalized citizen of the US. In 1995, he arrived in the Philippines and was admitted as "balikbayan";
thereafter, he was arrested and detained by the agent of BIR. Th Consul General of the US embassy of
Manila filed a request with the BID that his passport has been revoked and that Tabasa had a standing
warrant for several federal charges against him.
Petitioner alleged that he acquired Filipino citizenship by repatriation in accordance with the RA No. 8171,
and that because he is now a Filipino citizen, he cannot be deported or detained by the BID.

ISSUE: WON Tabasa has validly reacquired Philippine citizenship under RA 8171. If there is no valid
repatriation, then he can be summarily deported for his being an undocumented alien.

RULING: NO.
Persons qualified for repatriation under RA 8171
To reiterate, the only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following:
Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and
Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity.
Tabasa theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born
Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor.
Tabasa overlooks the fact that the privilege of repatriation under RA 8171 is available only to natural-
born Filipinos who lost their citizenship on account of political or economic necessity, and to
the minor children of said natural-born Filipinos. To claim the benefit of RA 8171, however, the children
must be of minor age at the time the petition for repatriation is filed by the parent. This is so because a
child does not have the legal capacity for all acts of civil life much less the capacity to undertake a
political act like the election of citizenship. On their own, the minor children cannot apply for
repatriation or naturalization separately from their parents.
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that Tabasa was a Filipino at birth. In 1968, while he was still a
minor, his father was naturalized as an American citizen; and by derivative naturalization, Tabasa
acquired U.S. citizenship. Tabasa now wants us to believe that he is entitled to automatic repatriation as
a child of natural-born Filipinos who left the country due to political or economic necessity. This is
absurd. Tabasa was no longer a minor at the time of his "repatriation" on June 13, 1996. The privilege
under RA 8171 belongs to children who are of minor age at the time of the filing of the petition for
repatriation.
Neither can petitioner be a natural-born Filipino who left the country due to political or economic
necessity. Clearly, he lost his Philippine citizenship by operation of law and not due to political or
economic exigencies. It was his father who could have been motivated by economic or political reasons
in deciding to apply for naturalization. The decision was his parent’s and not his. The privilege of
repatriation under RA 8171 is extended directly to the natural-born Filipinos who could prove that they
acquired citizenship of a foreign country due to political and economic reasons, and extended indirectly
to the minor children at the time of repatriation.
In sum, petitioner is not qualified to avail himself of repatriation under RA 8171. However, he can
possibly reacquire Philippine citizenship by availing of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act
of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9225) by simply taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

You might also like