Commonwealth vs. Baldello

A Filipino woman does not lose her Philippine citizenship by marriage to a foreigner who is stateless, the general rule that a wife follows the nationality of her husband presupposing that the husband possesses a nationality; where no such nationality exists, the rule does not apply and the wife retains her original citizenship.

Gloria Baldello was a Filipino citizen who, on November 12, 1921, married Gabino Ordorica, a native of Mexico then serving in the United States Army in the Philippines. Under paragraph 2, article 37, of the Constitution of Mexico, Ordorica had forfeited his Mexican citizenship by his service in the United States Army. He also failed to comply with the requirements of the Act of Congress of the United States of May 9, 1918 (40 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 542), by which he might have become a naturalized citizen of the United States. At the time of the marriage, Ordorica was thus neither a Mexican nor an American citizen — a stateless individual in the contemplation of the Law of Nations. The legal question was whether Baldello, by that marriage, followed the anomalous condition of her husband.

Gloria Baldello, a Filipino citizen, married Gabino Ordorica on November 12, 1921. Ordorica was a native of Mexico then serving in the United States Army in the Philippines. The couple lived together continually until August 24, 1924, when Ordorica abandoned Baldello.

At the time of the marriage, Ordorica's nationality was anomalous. Under paragraph 2, article 37, of the Constitution of Mexico, he had forfeited his Mexican citizenship by serving in the United States Army. He had also failed to comply with the requirements of the Act of Congress of the United States of May 9, 1918, by which he might have become a naturalized American citizen. He was thus neither a Mexican nor an American citizen — a stateless individual in the contemplation of the Law of Nations.

On December 31, 1935, Baldello obtained an order from the Court of First Instance of Manila declaring Ordorica presumptively dead for purposes of law, his whereabouts having been unknown for more than eleven years. On June 29, 1936, she filed a petition in the court below seeking a return to Filipino citizenship. The petition was denied, and she appealed.

• Effect of Marriage on Citizenship: Whether a Filipino woman loses her Philippine citizenship by marrying a foreigner who is stateless — that is, who possesses no nationality under the laws of any nation.

• Effect of Marriage on Citizenship: No. The general rule that a married woman follows the nationality of her husband presupposes a nationality in the husband; where no such nationality exists, the rule does not apply, and the wife retains her original citizenship.

• Effect of Marriage on Citizenship: The general rule that a married woman follows the nationality of her husband presupposes that the husband possesses a nationality. Where the husband is stateless — possessing neither his original nationality nor that of any other country — no new citizenship is imposed upon the wife by the marriage. Because there being no new citizenship imposed upon her by marriage, nothing could have divested her of her original citizenship, and her Philippine citizenship remained unchanged. This conclusion finds corroboration in the rule indicated in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23 Phil., 315, 324, 325), which was subsequently embodied in paragraph 7, article 1, of Commonwealth Act No. 63, providing that a Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by marrying a foreigner belonging to a nation the laws of which do not allow her to acquire the husband's nationality. The evident purpose of that rule is to prevent a condition of statelessness in a Filipino woman married to an alien — a policy perfectly applicable where the husband is himself stateless. Accordingly, Baldello remained a Filipino citizen, and her petition for Philippine citizenship was unnecessary.

• Doctrine of Dependent Citizenship of Married Women — The general rule that a married woman follows the nationality of her husband presupposes a nationality in the husband. Where no such nationality exists — that is, where the husband is stateless — the rule does not apply, and the wife retains her original citizenship. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that Gloria Baldello, who married a stateless man, never lost her Philippine citizenship and therefore required no naturalization.

• Policy Against Statelessness — A Filipino woman does not lose her nationality simply by marrying a foreigner, even without acquiring the foreigner's citizenship, lest she become destitute of nationality. The purpose of the rule in Roa vs. Collector of Customs and its statutory embodiment in Commonwealth Act No. 63 is to prevent a condition of statelessness in a Filipino woman married to an alien. This policy applies equally where the husband is stateless.

• "We believe, and so hold, that there being no new citizenship imposed upon her by marriage, nothing could have divested her of her original citizenship, and, therefore, her Philippine citizenship remained unchanged." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, articulating the core principle that the wife's dependent citizenship rule requires a husband's nationality to operate.

• "The general rule that a married woman follows the nationality of her husband presupposes a nationality in the husband. Where no such nationality exists, the rule does not apply." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the doctrine, frequently cited in subsequent citizenship jurisprudence.

• Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil., 315, 324, 325 — Cited as corroboration for the principle that a Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by marrying a foreigner whose national laws do not confer the husband's nationality upon her. The rule indicated in this case was subsequently codified in paragraph 7, article 1, of Commonwealth Act No. 63.

• Paragraph 2, Article 37, Constitution of Mexico — Provides that Mexican citizenship is forfeited by service in a foreign army. Applied to establish that Ordorica lost his Mexican citizenship by serving in the United States Army, rendering him stateless.

• Act of Congress of the United States of May 9, 1918 (40 U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 542) — Governs naturalization as a U.S. citizen. Applied to show that Ordorica failed to comply with its requirements, so he never acquired American citizenship either.

• Paragraph 7, Article 1, Commonwealth Act No. 63 — Provides that a Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by marrying a foreigner belonging to a nation the laws of which do not allow her to acquire the husband's nationality. Cited as the statutory embodiment of the rule in Roa vs. Collector of Customs and applied by analogy to the case of a stateless husband.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concurred.