Introduction

Philippine citizenship law is built primarily on bloodline, not birthplace. This is the doctrine of jus sanguinis: a person is Filipino if his or her father or mother is a Filipino citizen, subject to the rules of the Constitution, statutes, and administrative practice. In the Philippine setting, this principle often matters most to people who were:

born abroad to a Filipino parent,
born in the Philippines but treated as foreign nationals because of another citizenship,
born illegitimate and unsure whether the father’s or mother’s citizenship controls,
born before or after changes in constitutional law,
dual citizens by operation of law but without Philippine documentation,
adults who were told they must “apply for citizenship” after turning 18.

That last point is where confusion is common. Many persons think that once they reach the age of majority, they have “lost” any right to Philippine citizenship through a Filipino parent, or that they must undergo naturalization. In most cases, that is wrong. A person who is Filipino from birth by reason of parentage does not become Filipino by application after majority; rather, the person usually seeks recognition, proof, registration, or documentation of an already existing citizenship.

This article explains the legal basis, the effect of reaching adulthood, the distinction between being Filipino and proving that one is Filipino, the role of legitimacy and acknowledgment, the consequences of dual citizenship, and the practical routes for adults who wish to assert Philippine citizenship through descent.

I. Constitutional Foundation: Philippine Citizenship Is Generally by Blood

Under the Philippine constitutional framework, citizens of the Philippines include:

those who were citizens under earlier constitutions or laws,
those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines,
those born before a certain constitutional cut-off to Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority, and
those naturalized in accordance with law.

The key modern rule is the second: a person whose father or mother is a Filipino citizen is a Filipino citizen. This is the core constitutional statement of jus sanguinis.

Why this matters after majority

If a person falls within that class, the person is generally a Filipino from birth, not merely someone who may become Filipino later. The law does not usually require such a person to naturalize. What adulthood changes is usually the way status is documented, not the underlying citizenship itself.

II. “Filipino from Birth” Versus “Filipino by Election” Versus “Filipino by Naturalization”

A complete discussion requires separating three categories.

A. Filipino from birth

A person is generally natural-born Filipino if he or she is a citizen of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect Philippine citizenship.

This typically includes:

a child born anywhere in the world to a Filipino father or Filipino mother, under the present constitutional rule;
a person who did not have to elect or apply for citizenship.

For adults in this category, the issue is not acquisition but proof.

B. Filipino by election

A narrower historical category applies to certain persons born before the 1973 Constitution of Filipino mothers and foreign fathers, where the law then required an election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

This category still matters today because some people were born during the constitutional periods when the mother’s citizenship did not automatically transmit in the same way as the father’s. For them, a formal election may have been legally required.

This is not the ordinary rule for people born under the 1973 and 1987 constitutional regimes. It is mainly a historical transitional category.

C. Filipino by naturalization

Naturalization is the process by which a foreign national becomes Filipino by law or court process. A person who is already Filipino by descent does not normally need this.

A great deal of bad advice stems from confusing a jus sanguinis claimant with a naturalization applicant.

III. Does Reaching the Age of Majority End the Right to Claim Philippine Citizenship by Descent?

General rule: No

For most persons covered by jus sanguinis, reaching 18 years old does not extinguish Philippine citizenship. If a person was Filipino from birth through a Filipino parent, adulthood does not cancel that status.

What often happens is that the person reaches adulthood without:

a Philippine birth registration,
a Report of Birth before a Philippine foreign service post,
a Philippine passport,
a Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) record,
recognition by the Bureau of Immigration or other agencies.

In that situation, the adult is not “becoming” Filipino. The adult is asserting and documenting an already existing citizenship.

Why confusion persists

People often hear that “you must choose at 18” or “you must claim before 21.” Those statements may come from:

the old rules on election of citizenship for certain persons born to Filipino mothers under earlier constitutional regimes,
foreign law concepts about retention or election,
misunderstanding of dual nationality,
administrative advice given without attention to the claimant’s date of birth, legitimacy, and parentage.

Whether majority has legal significance depends heavily on which constitutional and statutory regime applied at the claimant’s birth.

IV. The Most Important First Question: When Were You Born, and Which Parent Was Filipino?

The answer determines which rule applies.

A. Born under the 1987 Constitution

If a person was born while the 1987 Constitution applies, and either parent was a Filipino citizen at the time of birth, the person is generally a Filipino citizen from birth.

For this group, majority does not create a need to elect citizenship. The person’s task is usually to establish:

the Filipino citizenship of the parent at the time of birth, and
the filiation or legal parent-child relationship.

B. Born under the 1973 Constitution

The 1973 Constitution also recognized those whose father or mother is a citizen of the Philippines. For many people born in that period, transmission through either parent was already constitutionally sufficient.

Again, majority usually does not operate as a forfeiture date for ordinary jus sanguinis claims.

C. Born before the 1973 Constitution to a Filipino mother

This is the classic group for election of Philippine citizenship. Under earlier constitutional rules, children of Filipino fathers and foreign mothers were treated differently from children of Filipino mothers and foreign fathers. The later Constitution and jurisprudence addressed this, but for those born in the earlier era, a formal election requirement may apply.

For these persons, age of majority becomes legally significant because election was supposed to be made upon reaching majority and within a reasonable period, subject to jurisprudential exceptions.

This is the main area where adulthood is not merely documentary but can affect the legal route.

V. Distinguishing “Claiming” from “Electing” Citizenship

These terms should not be used interchangeably.

1. Claiming citizenship by descent

This means asserting: “I was already Filipino at birth because my parent was Filipino.”

This normally applies to those born under the 1973 or 1987 constitutional regimes, assuming the parent’s citizenship and filiation are established.

2. Electing citizenship

This means performing a constitutionally recognized act to choose Philippine citizenship where the law specifically required such election.

This generally concerns the historical category of persons born to Filipino mothers before the 1973 Constitution.

Why the distinction is crucial

A person who is Filipino from birth should not be treated as if he must elect or naturalize.

A person who belongs to the historical election category should not assume that a passport application alone substitutes for a proper election, unless the circumstances fit the jurisprudence on substantial compliance and timely affirmative acts.

VI. The Historical Election Rule for Children of Filipino Mothers

Before the 1973 Constitution, the constitutional rule on citizenship was more restrictive as to transmission through the mother. A child born of a Filipino mother and alien father did not always automatically become Filipino. Instead, the child could generally elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

A. What “upon reaching the age of majority” means

Traditionally, election had to be made:

when the person reached majority, and
within a reasonable time thereafter.

Philippine cases did not always define “reasonable time” with mathematical rigidity. The issue often turned on facts, including whether the person performed acts showing a clear and timely choice of Philippine citizenship.

B. Form of election

Election is not merely private intention. It ordinarily required:

a formal statement or sworn act of election, and
registration in the proper civil registry.

Administrative and documentary requirements matter because citizenship status must be placed on official record.

C. Jurisprudential flexibility

Philippine jurisprudence has recognized that in some cases, election can be shown by overt acts or by substantial compliance, especially where the person clearly represented himself or herself as Filipino, obtained a Philippine passport, voted, or consistently exercised rights reserved to citizens, within a reasonable period and under circumstances accepted by law.

But this area is not casual. Courts and agencies can be exacting. The safer view is that formal election and registration remain important where election is legally required.

D. What if election was made late?

Late election raises difficult legal issues. Some cases have allowed flexibility where the circumstances justify it, especially if the person had no real opportunity earlier or acted consistently as Filipino. Other situations may lead agencies to reject the claim absent judicial relief.

Thus, for the historical election category, adulthood may matter significantly.

VII. Adults Born Abroad to a Filipino Parent: Are They Still Filipino Even If Never Reported to a Philippine Consulate?

General rule: Yes, if they were Filipino from birth

Failure to report the birth to a Philippine embassy or consulate does not usually erase citizenship that already vested by descent. A Report of Birth is generally evidentiary and administrative, not constitutive of citizenship for someone already Filipino by law.

What the Report of Birth does

It helps create an official Philippine record showing:

the child’s birth details,
the parent’s citizenship,
the child’s entitlement to recognition as Filipino.

If this was never done during childhood, an adult can often still pursue late registration/reporting, subject to documentary requirements.

Practical importance

Without a Report of Birth or equivalent registration, the person may face difficulty obtaining:

a Philippine passport,
PSA-issued records,
recognition by local civil registrars,
property, voting, or residency documentation tied to citizenship.

But the absence of registration is not the same as absence of citizenship.

VIII. Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and Recognition of Parentage

This is one of the most important and misunderstood topics.

A. Maternal transmission is generally more straightforward

Where the mother is Filipino, and motherhood is established by birth records, citizenship transmission is usually easier to document.

This is because maternity is ordinarily evident from the birth itself and official records.

B. Paternal transmission may require proof of filiation

Where the father is Filipino, especially if the child was born out of wedlock, the claimant may need to prove recognized filiation under Philippine law.

Issues may include:

whether the father acknowledged the child,
whether the birth certificate names the father,
whether the father signed the birth record,
whether there was a public document or private handwritten instrument recognizing the child,
whether later legitimation occurred,
whether later statutes on the use of the father’s surname affect proof of filiation.

Why this matters

Citizenship by descent depends not only on biology in a lay sense, but on the legally cognizable parent-child relationship recognized by Philippine law and practice.

A DNA relationship alone may not always be enough administratively without proper legal recognition.

C. Illegitimate child of a Filipino father

Historically, this area produced many disputes. Administrative agencies may ask whether the father legally acknowledged the child in the manner required by law. If acknowledgment was defective or absent, the citizenship claim may face difficulty.

D. Illegitimate child of a Filipino mother

This is generally less complicated in terms of proving maternity and thus citizenship transmission, assuming the mother was Filipino at the time of birth.

IX. Was the Parent Filipino at the Time of Birth?

This is essential. Citizenship by descent depends on the parent’s citizenship status when the child was born.

A. If the parent was then Filipino

The child may derive Philippine citizenship.

B. If the parent had already lost Philippine citizenship before the child’s birth

Then the child may not acquire Philippine citizenship by descent on that basis, unless another parent was Filipino.

C. If the parent later reacquired Philippine citizenship

Reacquisition by the parent does not necessarily mean the adult child automatically became Filipino retroactively. The child’s status usually depends on:

the parent’s citizenship at the child’s birth,
the child’s age when the parent reacquired,
any derivative benefits conferred by statute,
whether the child was a minor at the time of the parent’s reacquisition.

This is particularly relevant under the law on retention and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

X. The Effect of the Parent’s Naturalization Abroad

Many Filipinos naturalize in another country. That can complicate the child’s claim.

A. Child born before parent lost Philippine citizenship

If the child was born while the parent was still Filipino, the child’s Philippine citizenship by descent may already have vested.

B. Child born after parent lost Philippine citizenship

If the parent was no longer Filipino when the child was born, the child generally cannot claim Philippine citizenship by descent through that parent on that basis alone.

C. Parent later reacquires Philippine citizenship

This may benefit certain children, especially minors, but not all adult children automatically and not in all circumstances.

A careful timeline is crucial:

parent’s original Philippine citizenship,
date of foreign naturalization,
date of child’s birth,
date of parent’s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

XI. Dual Citizenship and Dual Allegiance: Important Distinctions

Philippine law recognizes situations where a person may hold more than one citizenship.

A. Dual citizenship by operation of law

A child born to a Filipino parent in a country that grants citizenship by birthplace or descent may end up with two citizenships automatically. That does not by itself negate Philippine citizenship.

B. Dual allegiance

This is a more political and constitutional concern, distinct from simple dual citizenship. Philippine law and constitutional discourse have historically treated it differently.

C. No automatic loss simply because another citizenship exists at birth

An adult who has always held another citizenship does not thereby lose Philippine citizenship acquired at birth through a Filipino parent.

D. Practical consequences

Even if Philippine citizenship exists as a matter of law, a dual national may have to confront:

travel document choices,
military or tax issues under foreign law,
civil registry inconsistencies,
land ownership and profession restrictions in the Philippines,
electoral eligibility rules for certain public offices.

XII. The Retention and Reacquisition Law and Its Relevance to Adult Children

Philippine law allows certain former natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens to reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship.

A. Main purpose of the law

It allows former natural-born Filipinos who lost Philippine citizenship by naturalization abroad to reacquire Philippine citizenship.

B. Derivative effect on children

The law has derivative implications for unmarried children below 18 years of age of those who reacquire citizenship. Those minor children may themselves be deemed citizens under the law’s terms and implementing practice.

C. What about children who are already adults?

An adult child does not ordinarily obtain Philippine citizenship solely because the parent later reacquired it, unless the adult child was already Filipino by descent from birth for independent reasons.

This is a major point of confusion:

minor child at parent’s reacquisition: possible derivative benefit,
adult child at parent’s reacquisition: generally no automatic derivative benefit; the adult must stand on his or her own legal basis.

So an adult claiming via jus sanguinis must usually show that the Filipino parent was Filipino when the adult claimant was born or that another independent constitutional/statutory basis exists.

XIII. Natural-Born Status: Can an Adult Claimant Be Considered Natural-Born?

Often, yes.

If a person was a citizen from birth without needing to do any act to acquire or perfect citizenship, that person is generally natural-born.

Thus:

a person born under the modern constitutional rule to a Filipino parent is ordinarily natural-born,
a person whose citizenship depended on election presents a more nuanced question under Philippine law and jurisprudence.

Natural-born status matters for:

eligibility for public office,
rights reserved to Filipinos,
land ownership rules,
certain professions and constitutional qualifications.

For most modern jus sanguinis cases, recognition of citizenship by descent ordinarily supports natural-born status because the citizenship existed from birth.

XIV. Documentation: How an Adult Usually Proves Philippine Citizenship by Descent

A legal claim is one thing; an administratively accepted claim is another. Adults typically need documents proving both the parent’s citizenship and the claimant’s filiation.

Commonly relevant documents include:

As to the Filipino parent

Philippine birth certificate,
Philippine passport,
certificate of naturalization or identification showing Philippine citizenship,
old Philippine passport records,
voter records or other government records,
dual citizenship or reacquisition certificate where relevant,
marriage certificate if needed to connect names.

As to the claimant

foreign birth certificate,
Report of Birth (if already done),
late-registered Report of Birth or civil registry documents,
IDs and passports,
documents proving filiation,
acknowledgment instruments for illegitimate children,
marriage certificate if name changes complicate identity.

As to timelines

proof of the parent’s citizenship status on the exact date of the claimant’s birth,
proof of any foreign naturalization by the parent and the date thereof,
proof of any later reacquisition by the parent.

XV. Administrative Routes Commonly Used by Adults

The exact route depends on the facts, but generally there are several practical avenues.

A. Late Report of Birth through a Philippine foreign service post

For persons born abroad who were never reported, this is often the first step.

This does not create citizenship if it already existed; it helps record and document it.

B. Philippine passport application as a citizen by descent

Once sufficient documentation exists, the person may seek a Philippine passport. Passport issuance is evidence of government recognition, though not the sole determinant of citizenship.

C. Civil registry correction or supplemental registration

Where names, parentage, or dates are inconsistent, administrative correction may be needed.

D. Bureau of Immigration recognition or related proceedings

In some cases, immigration authorities become involved, especially where proof is contested or where the person is in the Philippines seeking recognition of status.

E. Judicial action

If the claim is disputed, documents are deficient, or late election issues exist, court proceedings may be necessary to establish civil status, filiation, or the legal consequences of acts already performed.

XVI. The Role of the PSA and Civil Registry

Philippine citizenship claims often succeed or fail not because of grand constitutional questions, but because of records.

Important concerns include:

whether the person’s birth is registered in Philippine records,
whether the parent’s name is consistent across documents,
whether the parent’s citizenship is indicated,
whether acknowledgments of paternity satisfy legal form,
whether there are clerical errors or substantial discrepancies,
whether delayed registration was properly supported.

A claimant may be legally right on citizenship yet administratively blocked by documentation defects.

XVII. Common Legal Problems in Adult Jus Sanguinis Claims

1. The parent became a foreign citizen before the claimant was born

This can defeat descent through that parent unless the parent had not yet lost Philippine citizenship or another Filipino parent exists.

2. No legal proof of paternity

Especially for children born out of wedlock to Filipino fathers, lack of valid acknowledgment can be a major obstacle.

3. Assumption that a foreign birth certificate alone is enough

It often is not. Agencies want proof of the Filipino parent’s citizenship and legal filiation.

4. Confusion between citizenship and passport entitlement

A passport is evidence and a travel document, not the source of citizenship itself.

5. Belief that adulthood cancels citizenship

For modern jus sanguinis cases, this is usually false.

6. Belief that parent’s later reacquisition automatically covers adult children

Usually false for adults, unless they were already Filipino from birth on independent grounds.

7. Historical election cases handled as ordinary descent claims

This can cause denial where election was the legally required route.

XVIII. The “Reasonable Time” Doctrine in Election Cases

Because the topic specifically concerns majority, this doctrine deserves separate treatment.

For persons who had to elect Philippine citizenship, the constitutional phrase “upon reaching the age of majority” did not always mean “on the exact birthday or never.” Courts have understood this to allow election within a reasonable time after majority.

But “reasonable time” is fact-sensitive. Factors may include:

when the person learned of the right,
whether the person consistently acted as Filipino,
whether formal election was eventually made,
whether delay was excusable,
whether government authorities had already recognized the person as Filipino.

Practical caution

The doctrine should not be treated as a blanket pardon for long delay. It is a litigation-sensitive doctrine, not a casual administrative shortcut.

XIX. Voting, Owning Land, Practicing Professions, and Other Consequences

Once recognized as a Filipino citizen, an adult may enjoy rights reserved to Filipinos, but some rights require separate compliance.

A. Voting

Citizenship is necessary but voter registration is separate.

B. Land ownership

Philippine law restricts land ownership largely to Filipinos and certain qualified entities. Citizenship documentation becomes critical.

C. Practice of professions

Some professions are restricted to Filipino citizens or require reciprocity and licensing rules beyond mere citizenship.

D. Holding public office

Citizenship and often natural-born status matter, especially for higher offices.

E. Immigration status

A person recognized as Filipino may not need to rely on foreigner visa categories when in the Philippines, though implementation issues can arise if records are incomplete.

XX. Loss of Philippine Citizenship After Birth

An adult who was Filipino from birth should also consider whether he or she later lost Philippine citizenship under Philippine law.

Historically, loss could occur through certain acts such as:

naturalization in a foreign country,
express renunciation,
oath of allegiance to another country under certain legal regimes,
service in foreign armed forces in specified circumstances,
other acts recognized by statute.

The rules on loss and reacquisition changed over time. So two different questions must be asked:

Did I acquire Philippine citizenship at birth?
Did I later lose it?

A person born Filipino but later naturalized elsewhere may need reacquisition, not first-time recognition.

This is separate from the claim of someone who never lost Philippine citizenship because he or she merely held another nationality from birth.

XXI. Adults Who Held Only Foreign Passports All Their Lives

Using only a foreign passport does not automatically erase Philippine citizenship acquired at birth.

However, it can create practical problems:

absence of Philippine records,
appearance of exclusive foreign nationality,
tax, residency, and immigration questions,
agency skepticism.

Still, for a genuine jus sanguinis citizen, the legal analysis begins with parentage and citizenship at birth, not passport history alone.

XXII. Can an Adult Simply “Choose” Philippine Citizenship Because a Grandparent Was Filipino?

Not ordinarily.

Philippine jus sanguinis works through the citizenship of the parent, not directly the grandparent, unless the parent’s own citizenship and transmission can be legally established in a chain.

A Filipino grandparent may matter only indirectly:

to prove the parent was Filipino,
to support the parent’s citizenship timeline,
to establish historical records.

There is generally no free-standing constitutional right to claim Philippine citizenship solely because a grandparent was Filipino if neither parent was Filipino at the claimant’s birth.

XXIII. Adopted Persons and Stepchildren

A. Adoption

Adoption raises distinct issues. Not every adoption automatically transmits citizenship in the same way as biological descent. The legal effect depends on the governing adoption laws and the specific citizenship framework applicable.

B. Stepchildren

A step-parent relationship alone does not create citizenship by descent.

Because this article concerns jus sanguinis, the safer core principle is that citizenship transmission ordinarily depends on legal parentage recognized by law, not informal family ties.

XXIV. Foundlings and Special Situations

Foundlings have historically raised special constitutional issues because parentage is unknown. This is not a standard jus sanguinis problem, but it intersects with citizenship debates.

A foundling case is not a typical “claim through a Filipino parent after reaching majority” case because the very identity of the parents may be uncertain.

XXV. Philippine Context: Why This Topic Matters in Practice

Large Filipino communities abroad mean many adults discover only later in life that they may already be Filipino. Common real-world scenarios include:

an adult born in the United States, Canada, Australia, Europe, or the Middle East to a Filipino mother or father;
an adult whose Filipino parent naturalized abroad after the adult’s birth;
an adult whose birth was never reported to a Philippine consulate;
an adult with a Filipino father who never formally acknowledged paternity;
an adult whose parent says, “You had to choose before 18,” though the person was actually Filipino from birth;
an adult in the historical category born to a Filipino mother before the 1973 constitutional change, where election truly matters.

The legal result differs sharply across these scenarios.

XXVI. A Functional Framework for Analysis

For any adult considering a claim, the legal analysis usually runs in this order:

1. Identify the claimant’s date of birth

This determines the constitutional regime.

2. Identify which parent was Filipino

Mother, father, or both.

3. Confirm the parent’s citizenship at the claimant’s birth

Not before, not after—at that moment.

4. Determine whether the claimant was legitimate or illegitimate, if relevant

Especially important in paternal-line cases.

5. Determine whether the claimant is claiming citizenship from birth or must rely on election

This is the major legal fork.

6. Determine whether the claimant later lost Philippine citizenship

Especially by later foreign naturalization.

7. Assemble proof

Civil status, identity, parentage, citizenship timeline.

8. Choose the proper procedural route

Consular reporting, passport, registry correction, immigration recognition, or court action.

XXVII. Frequent Misstatements Corrected

“You have to apply for Philippine citizenship before you turn 18.”

Usually incorrect for persons who were already Filipino from birth through a Filipino parent under the modern constitutional rules.

“If your birth was never reported, you are not Filipino.”

Usually incorrect. Reporting is commonly evidentiary, not constitutive, for those already citizens by descent.

“If your parent became American/Canadian/Australian, you can never be Filipino.”

Incorrect without timeline analysis. What matters is whether the parent was still Filipino when you were born, and whether you later lost citizenship yourself.

“Only legitimate children can inherit Philippine citizenship.”

Overbroad and incorrect. But illegitimate children, especially those claiming through the father, may face proof-of-filiation issues.

“Your grandparent was Filipino, so you can claim citizenship directly.”

Not usually. The claim generally runs through the parent.

“Once you become an adult, you lose your right.”

Usually incorrect except where a specific legal rule on election applies.

XXVIII. Where the Hard Cases Usually Are

The hardest cases are not those of adults simply born abroad to a clearly documented Filipino mother. The difficult cases are usually:

claimant born before 1973 to a Filipino mother and alien father,
claimant is an illegitimate child of a Filipino father with weak acknowledgment records,
parent naturalized abroad before claimant’s birth,
conflicting names and records,
no birth records or late registration,
claimant later naturalized abroad and may have lost Philippine citizenship,
agency rejects documentation and insists on judicial relief.

These are the cases where legal advice becomes especially important.

XXIX. The Central Legal Insight

For most adults, the phrase “claiming Philippine citizenship after reaching the age of majority” is legally misleading.

The real question is usually not:

“Can I still become Filipino now that I am an adult?”

The real question is:

“Was I already a Filipino from birth, and how do I prove it now?”

Only in the historical election category does majority itself become a central threshold issue.

XXX. Conclusion

In Philippine law, jus sanguinis remains the dominant principle of citizenship. For most people born to a Filipino parent, reaching the age of majority does not terminate the right to be recognized as a Filipino. If citizenship attached at birth, adulthood does not erase it. What adulthood often changes is the urgency of assembling proof and the procedural route needed to obtain official recognition.

The main exceptions and complications arise where:

the claimant belongs to the older class required to elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching majority,
the Filipino parent was not Filipino at the time of birth,
filiation is legally defective or undocumented,
the claimant later lost Philippine citizenship by his or her own subsequent acts.

Thus, in Philippine context, a complete legal answer always turns on five core elements: date of birth, parent’s citizenship at that date, constitutional regime, filiation, and any later loss or reacquisition of citizenship.

Where those elements support jus sanguinis, an adult is not asking the Philippine state for a favor or a new grant of nationality. The adult is, in principle, asking the state to acknowledge a status that the Constitution and the law may have conferred from the very beginning.