Tan Sang v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Tan Sang, a citizen of the Republic of China, arrived in the Philippines in 1912 and has resided there continuously since. He is married with nine children, four of whom were minors at the time of the petition. He operates a business known as Sin Beng Trading. 2. Procedural History: Tan Sang filed an application for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental on September 24, 1960. The Republic of the Philippines filed an opposition, and after trial, the court rendered a decision on April 12, 1962, finding the petitioner entitled to naturalization. The Republic appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, as the appellant, raised several issues on appeal, including whether the petitioner was exempt from filing a declaration of intention, if the petition was invalid due to the non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival, whether the petitioner had complied with the Alien Registration Law regarding his minor children, if he possessed a lucrative trade or occupation, and the credibility of his character witnesses. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision, denying the petition for naturalization.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention. Whether the petition is invalid for the non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival. Whether the petitioner's conduct is irreproachable, considering the alleged lack of proof of compliance with the Alien Registration Law regarding his minor children. Whether the petitioner possesses a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. Whether the petitioner's character witnesses are credible persons.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance is reversed, and the petition for naturalization is denied, with costs against the appellee.
Ratio Decidendi
On the exemption from filing a declaration of intention: The Court found that the petitioner, having resided continuously in the Philippines for over thirty years, was exempt from filing a declaration of intention under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, provided he complied with the additional requirement of having given primary and secondary education to all his children in government-recognized schools not limited to any race or nationality. The petitioner's unrebutted testimony indicated his children were enrolled in such schools. On the validity of the petition for non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival: The Court held that the petition was fatally defective due to the admitted non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival. Citing Charm Chan vs. Republic, the Court emphasized that this requirement, mandated by Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, is mandatory. The argument that the Bureau of Immigration retained the original certificate of arrival was insufficient, as the petitioner should have secured a certified copy and adduced it as required by law. On compliance with the Alien Registration Law regarding minor children: The Court stated that the failure to prove compliance with the Alien Registration Law (RA 562) concerning minor children was not unfavorable to the petition. It was incumbent upon the Republic to prove non-compliance, as such compliance is not a specifically enumerated requirement for naturalization proceedings. On possession of a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation: The Court found that the petitioner did not possess a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation based on his own evidence. His annual income, as shown by his testimony and income tax returns (P5,000.00 average annual income, with net incomes of P3,790.99 in 1960 and P4,779.75 in 1959), was deemed insufficient, referencing prior rulings in Koa Gui vs. Republic and Tan vs. Republic where similar or higher incomes were held inadequate for married applicants with children. On the credibility of character witnesses: The Court found the petitioner's character witnesses, Maximo Lago and Gregorio Calit, not credible. Their testimonies did not demonstrate intimate knowledge of the petitioner; Calit, for instance, admitted he was not close to the petitioner's family and could not name his wife. The Court reiterated its stance that character witnesses must have intimate knowledge of the applicant, and professional or business dealings alone are insufficient to establish this.
Main Doctrine
A petition for naturalization is fatally defective if the certificate of arrival is not included as part of the petition, and professional or business dealings alone do not provide a sufficient basis for character witnesses to vouch for an applicant's good moral character.