Tan v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Zacarias G. Tan, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization in the Philippines. He alleged to be an employee in Maasin, Leyte, born in 1933, and a citizen of Nationalist China. He claimed to possess the necessary qualifications and none of the disqualifications for Philippine citizenship and intended to renounce his allegiance to Nationalist China. He presented two Filipino citizens as witnesses. Procedural History: The initial petition was filed on May 31, 1956. The Republic of the Philippines moved to dismiss due to the lack of allegations regarding educational qualifications exempting the petitioner from filing a declaration of intention. The Court of First Instance ordered an amendment, which was complied with on May 20, 1957, by adding a statement about completing elementary and secondary education in recognized schools. A motion for republication of the amended petition was denied. The lower court rendered a decision on November 18, 1957, granting the petition. The Solicitor General appealed this decision. The Petition: The appeal challenges the lower court's decision on three grounds. First, it argues the court lacked jurisdiction because the amended petition, which contained a material fact regarding educational qualifications, was not republished as required by law. Second, it contends that the petitioner's occupation was not sufficiently lucrative, as the evidence of his P120.00 monthly income was uncorroborated and potentially self-serving. Third, the appeal asserts that the decision violated Republic Act No. 530 by implying the petitioner could naturalize before the mandatory two-year waiting period following the decision's promulgation.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to try the naturalization case without republication of the amended petition. Whether the petitioner possessed a lucrative occupation sufficient for naturalization. Whether the decision contravened Republic Act No. 530 by allowing naturalization prematurely.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance is reversed, and the petition for naturalization is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction due to lack of republication: The Court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the amended petition because the amendment, which stated that the applicant completed his elementary and secondary education in government-recognized schools, was a material fact entitling him to exemption from filing a declaration of intention. Republic Act No. 530 requires that no petition for naturalization shall be heard until after six months from the date of the last publication. Since the amended petition was not republished, the public was not made aware of this material fact, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing and grant the petition. The Court cited Kiat Chun Tan vs. Republic (G.R. No. L-4802, April 29, 1953) in support of this ruling. On the issue of lucrative occupation: The Court found no credible proof to sustain the lower court's finding that the petitioner had a lucrative profession or occupation. The evidence presented consisted only of an unsworn certification from his father and his own testimony. The Court considered this insufficient, especially since the employer was his father and he lived with him, raising suspicion that the employment was fabricated solely for the naturalization petition. Even if the P120.00 monthly income were conceded, the Court ruled that it could not be considered sufficiently lucrative due to the prevailing high cost of living, citing Swee Din Tan vs. Republic (G.R. No. L-13177, August 31, 1960), Republic vs. Lim (L-3030, January 31, 1951), and Pang Kok Hua vs. Republic (L-5047, May 8, 1952). On the issue of contravention of Republic Act No. 530 regarding premature naturalization: The Court noted that the dispositive portion of the lower court's decision, directing the clerk of court to forward papers to various government offices "as soon as possible," gave the impression that the petitioner could take his oath without waiting for the two-year period mandated by law. This aspect of the decision was deemed objectionable, as it appeared to allow naturalization prematurely, contrary to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530.
Main Doctrine
A naturalization court lacks jurisdiction to hear an amended petition if the amendments, which are material facts entitling the petitioner to exemption from filing a declaration of intention, are not republished as required by law. Furthermore, an occupation yielding a monthly income of P120.00 cannot be considered sufficiently lucrative in light of the prevailing cost of living.