G.R. No. L-27976 & L-27977. December 7, 1982.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANSELMA AVENGOZA, ET. AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Anselina Avengoza, her Chinese husband Go Gam, and her mother Gavina Avengoza were charged with violating Commonwealth Act No. 108 (Anti-Dummy Law) for allegedly using Gavina as a dummy to acquire private agricultural lands, which aliens are constitutionally barred from owning. In a separate case, Avengoza and Rafaela Alfante were charged for the direct sale of agricultural land to Avengoza, an alien by marriage. During trial, Go Gam and Gavina died. The remaining accused, Avengoza and Alfante, moved to withdraw their pleas and to quash the informations.
The motion to quash was predicated on Avengoza’s claim that she had reacquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation following her husband’s death, thereby extinguishing any criminal liability for herself and, consequently, for Alfante. The trial court granted the motion, accepting that Avengoza’s execution and registration of an oath of allegiance constituted valid repatriation, rendering the cases moot.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the criminal cases on the ground that Anselina Avengoza had validly reacquired Philippine citizenship by repatriation, thereby extinguishing the criminal liability arising from the alleged violations.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal. The legal logic is clear: Avengoza’s mere execution and registration of an oath of allegiance did not constitute valid repatriation under Commonwealth Act No. 63 . Section 4 of the law requires the applicant to show by conclusive evidence the qualifications for repatriation. For a woman who lost citizenship by marriage to an alien, this necessitates proof, often through a judicial petition, of her prior Philippine citizenship and the termination of the marital status.
The record contained no such conclusive proof. Avengoza failed to demonstrate she was originally a Filipino citizen before her marriage. Therefore, her purported repatriation was legally ineffective. Furthermore, criminal liability for violating the Anti-Dummy Law is not extinguished by a subsequent change in citizenship status. The alleged acts, if proven, were complete violations at the time they were committed by an alien. The sales, being void as against public policy for circumventing constitutional restrictions, do not become valid retroactively. The cases were remanded for trial on the merits.