Case Digest: Mary Grace Natividad S.

Poe – Llamanzares, Petitioners,

March 08, 2016

Facts:

Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares, the petitioner, was discovered as a newborn at the
Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on September 3, 1968, by a man named Edgardo Militar. Edgardo
entrusted the care and custody of the petitioner to his relatives, Emiliano Militar and his wife.
In official documents like the Foundling Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth, the petitioner was
named "Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar."At the age of five, the well-known couple
Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (also known as Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (also known as
Susan Roces) petitioned for her adoption in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Juan City.
Upon turning eighteen in 1986, the petitioner registered as a voter at the local COMELEC Office
in San Juan City.

On December 13, 1986, she obtained her COMELEC Voter's Identification Card.
She acquired her first Philippine Passport, No. F927287, on April 4, 1988, from the Department
of Foreign Affairs (DFA). Subsequently, on April 5, 1993, and May 19, 1998, she renewed her
passport and was issued Philippine Passport Numbers L881511 and DD156616 respectively. The
petitioner tied the knot with Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a dual citizen of the
Philippines and the U.S., at Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan City. Wanting to be with her
husband, who was based in the U.S. at the time, the couple returned to the U.S. two days after
their wedding ceremony, on July 29, 1991.

In her strong desire to be with her grieving mother, the petitioner and her husband made the
decision to permanently move and reside in the Philippines in the first quarter of 2005. The
couple began preparations for their relocation, which included notifying their children's schools
about their transfer to Philippine schools for the next semester. They also coordinated with
property movers to transport their household items, furniture, and cars from the U.S. to the
Philippines. The petitioner returned to the Philippines on May 24, 2005, and promptly obtained
a Tax Identification Number from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On July 7, 2006, the petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in
accordance with Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225, also known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003. Under the same Act, she submitted a sworn petition to the Bureau of
Immigration (BI) to reacquire Philippine citizenship, along with petitions for derivative citizenship
on behalf of her three minor children,
On July 10, 2006.The BI approved the petitioner's petitions, declaring that she had effectively
reacquired her Philippine citizenship, while her children were recognized as citizens of the
Philippines. Before assuming her post, the petitioner executed an "Affidavit of Renunciation of
Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation of American Citizenship" before a
notary public in Pasig City on October 20, 2010.

On July 12, 2011, the petitioner formally renounced her U.S. nationality before the Vice Consul
of the U.S. Embassy in Manila.
On October 2, 2012, the petitioner submitted her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for the 2013
Senatorial Elections to the COMELEC. In response to the question regarding her period of
residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013, she stated "6 years and 6 months." The
petitioner received the highest number of votes and was proclaimed Senator on May 16, 2013.

On October 15, 2015, the petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency in the May 2016 Elections.
In this document, she affirmed that she is a natural-born citizen and stated that her residence in
the Philippines up to the day before May 9, 2016, amounted to ten years and eleven months,
counted from May 24, 2005.Elamparo argued that the petitioner cannot be recognized as a
natural-born Filipino citizen due to her status as a foundling. Elamparo contended that
international law does not confer natural-born status and Filipino citizenship on foundlings.
Tatad proposed a theory based on the Philippines' adherence to the principle of jus sanguinis,
asserting that individuals of unknown parentage, particularly foundlings, cannot be considered
natural-born Filipino citizens, as blood relationship is the determining factor for natural-born
status.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner, Mary Grace Poe S.- Llamanzares is a Filipino citizen and if
she is qualified to run for presidency.

Ruling: The petition is granted.

Additional indirect evidence regarding the nationality of the petitioner's parents includes the fact
that she was left as an infant in a Roman Catholic Church located in Iloilo City. Furthermore, she
possesses typical Filipino characteristics, such as height, a flat nasal bridge, straight black hair,
almond-shaped eyes, and an oval face.

All of the aforementioned evidence, which pertains to a person with typical Filipino traits being
abandoned in a Catholic Church within a municipality where the vast majority of the population
is Filipino, with a probability exceeding 99% that a child born there would be Filipino, strongly
suggests, if not outright confirms, that the petitioner's parents are Filipinos.
Denying full Filipino citizenship to all foundlings and rendering them stateless solely due to the
theoretical possibility that one among thousands of these foundlings might be the offspring of
not one, but two, foreigners is discriminatory, illogical, and unjust. Such a decision lacks
rationality. Given the statistical certainty, nearly 99.9%, that any child born in the Philippines
would be a natural-born citizen, rejecting this status for foundlings essentially denies them their
inherent rights.
From a legal perspective, foundlings collectively qualify as natural-born citizens. Although the
1935 Constitution does not explicitly mention foundlings, it does not contain language that
definitively excludes them either.

The Philippines not being a party to the 1930 Hague Convention or the 1961 Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness does not mean that the principles of these conventions are not
applicable. The Philippines is a signatory to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and
Article 15(1) of the UDHR essentially affirms Article 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention. Article 2
of the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness effectively implements
Article 15(1) of the UDHR.

In summary, all international law conventions and instruments regarding the nationality of
foundlings were established to address the plight of a vulnerable group facing misfortune not of
their own making. Restricting their application goes against the principles of a civilized nation and
its membership in the global community.

The COMELEC's treatment of the 2012 Certificate of Candidacy (COC) as binding and conclusive
evidence against the petitioner was an abuse of discretion.

The COMELEC admitted to disregarding the evidence that the petitioner had physically returned
to the Philippines on May 24, 2005, not because it was untrue, but because the COMELEC held
the position that domicile could only be established from the petitioner's repatriation under R.A.
No. 9225 in July 2006. However, it cannot be denied that, in reality, the petitioner had returned
from the U.S. on May 24, 2005, with the intention of staying permanently. When she claimed to
have been a resident for ten years and eleven months, she did so in good faith.

In conclusion, the COMELEC, with an unwavering stance, virtually dismissed several pieces of
evidence regarding the petitioner's residence in the Philippines and her intention to not return
to the United States of America. This conclusion was based primarily on the petitioner's "sworn
declaration in her COC for Senator," which the COMELEC deemed as a declaration and admission
that her residence in the Philippines only began in November 2006. This approach disregards the
established jurisprudence that it is the actual residence, not the individual's statement, that
determines residency for the purpose of meeting the constitutional residency requirement for
presidential elections. Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that the petitioner's declaration for
Senator had a different context and timeframe from that of her presidential candidacy. There are
additional residency facts beyond those mentioned in the COC for Senator.

Considering all of these factors, it was arbitrary for the COMELEC to solely rely on the petitioner's
statement in her COC for Senator to categorize the case as a false representation.
In summary, the COMELEC's resolutions regarding the petitioner's citizenship and residence for
her presidential candidacy are riddled with grave abuse of discretion from start to finish.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the Certificate of Candidacy for President of the
Republic of the Philippines in the May 9, 2016 National and Local Elections, filed by respondent
Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe-Llamanzares, is Granted. Petitioner MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
SONORA POE-LLAMANZARES is DECLARED QUALIFIED to run for President in the National and
Local Elections on May 9, 2016.