Dy v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the naturalization of Dy Bu Si, a Chinese national, who filed a petition to become a citizen of the Philippines. The Republic of the Philippines opposed this petition, raising several grounds for disqualification. 2. Procedural History: Dy Bu Si filed his petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Samar on December 10, 1959. After publication and a hearing, the lower court granted the petition on May 18, 1961. Subsequently, on August 21, 1963, the court allowed the petitioner to take his oath of citizenship. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision on the same day. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines appealed the lower court's decision, arguing that the publication of the naturalization petition in the newspaper "Nueva Era" did not satisfy the legal requirement of general circulation in Samar. Additionally, the government contended that the petitioner was disqualified due to his unauthorized use of an alias ("Filadelfo Dy"), insufficient income to support his family, and failure to state all previous places of residence in his petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the publication requirement of the naturalization law was satisfied. Whether the use of an alias without authority disqualifies the petitioner from naturalization. Whether the petitioner's income constitutes a lucrative occupation. Whether the omission of previous places of residence in the petition renders it fatally defective.
Ruling
The decision granting the petition for naturalization and the order allowing the petitioner to take his oath are reversed, and the petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the publication requirement: The Court held that the publication requirement of the naturalization law was not satisfied. The oppositor argued that there was no showing that the "Nueva Era" has general circulation in Samar. The Court reiterated its ruling in Tan Ten Koc vs. Republic that positive evidence must be presented to prove that the newspaper is of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and the affidavit of the editor is insufficient. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to present such evidence. On the use of an alias: The Court found that the petitioner uses the name "Filadelfo Dy" not as a baptismal name, but as an alias. The use of an alias without authority disqualifies an applicant for naturalization, citing Tan vs. Republic and Chiu Bok vs. Republic. On the lucrative occupation: The Court determined that the petitioner's income of P4,612.10, with a wife and six children to support, does not satisfy the legal requirement of having a lucrative occupation or calling. This was consistent with rulings in Chiu Bok vs. Republic and Chua Eng Hok vs. Republic. On the omission of previous residences: The petitioner testified to having resided in Lucena, Quezon, and Gandara and Tarongan, Samar, in addition to his present residence in Catbalogan, Samar. However, he failed to state these previous places of residence in his petition. The Court ruled that the petition is, therefore, fatally defective, citing Cheng vs. Republic.
Main Doctrine
Failure to prove that the newspaper in which the naturalization petition was published has general circulation in the province of residence, and the use of an alias without authority, are grounds for dismissal of the petition for naturalization. Furthermore, an income of P4,612.10 for supporting a wife and six children does not constitute a lucrative occupation. The omission of previous places of residence in the petition also renders it fatally defective.