1 Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. Comelec March 3, 2004 Facts:
#ulin': #espondent is a natural("orn Filipino citi)en. $ccordin'ly, his 'randather oren)o !ou!oe who was a paniard and "orn around /760 ac;uired Filipino citi)enship due to the en
The case was a consolidated case where the petitioners moved to deny due
masse Filipini)ation to inha"itants o the !hilippine *ill o /02. !etitioners ailed to prove that
course the certiicate o candidacy or !resident or the 2004 elections iled "y #onald $llan
the late oren)o !oe!ou was a resident o some other place other than an Carlos
!oe %Fernando !oe Jr.& They alle'e material misrepresentation o respondent where the latter
!an'asinan which was the place o his death in /14. This conerment o citi)enship to
stated that he was a natural("orn citi)en when in act accordin' to the petitioners, he was not
oren)o !oe would "e transmitted to his son $llan, ather o respondent.
or he was "orn to an $merican mother, *essie +elley who was not married to his ather $llan
was an ille'itimate child o his ather, he could still claim Filipino citi)enship throu'h his ather
F. !oe %Fernando !oe r.& when he was "orn. $ccordin'ly, $llan F. !oe was married to a
or $rticle 3, ection /, para'raph 3 o the /31 !hilippine Constitution provides that children
!aulita !oe y -ome) "eore he had a relationship with *essie +elley. aid !aulita !oe in an
whose athers were Filipino citi)ens are considered Filipino ipino citi)ens also. aid provision did not
aidavit in panish stated that she had sued $llan ater indin' out his "i'amous relationship
distin'uish "etween le'itimate and ille'itimate child o the Filipino ather. F!Js iliation with his
with *essie +elley. $lso it is alle'ed that even respondents ather is not a Filipino citi)en or
late ather $llan F. !oeFernando !oe r. was proven "y a notari)ed aidavit e=ecuted "y his
respondents 'randather was a paniard who resided here in the !hilippines and died in an
aunt #u"y +elley Man'ahas, sister o his late mother *essie +elley !oe, that respondent was
Carlos, !an'asinan on eptem"er //, /14. !etitioner Fornier iled the petition to deny due
the child o his late sister with Fernando !oe, r., that *essie +elley and Fernando !oe r.
coursecancel the certiicate o candidacy o respondent "eore the Comelec Third ivision
were married on eptem"er /, /40, that the couple lived to'ether as a amily to'ether with
which denied the same. The Comelec en "anc sustained the denial "y the division compellin'
the aiant and her mother until the li"eration o Manila in /41, and attested to the act that
petitioner to ile a petition or certiorari under #ule 4 in relation to #ule 1 "eore the upreme
respondent is a natural "orn Filipino and le'itimate child i Fernando !oe r. aid evidence
Court. !etitioners Tecson, esiderio Jr., and 5ele) iled their petitions directly "eore the
was considered in accordance with ection 3, #ule /30 o the #ules o Court. The alle'ation
upreme Court citin' $rticle 6, ection 4, para'raph 6 o the /76 !hilippine Constitution.
that Fernando !oe was married to a certain !aulita !oe prior to his marria'e to *essie +elley
8ssues: /& 8s respondent respondent a natural("or natural("ornn Filipino Filipino citi)en citi)en99 2& 8s respondent respondent 'uilty o material material misrepresentat misrepresentation ion in his certiicate certiicate o candidacy9
was dou"tul, and was not proven "y the petitioners. #espondent is not lia"le or material misrepresentation in his certiicate o candidacy. uch was not proven "y the petitioners evidence, and provin' such material misrepresentation must show that such misrepresentation "e material, deli"erate, and willul.
By Jasper M. Carias Law 4
