Bhrojraj v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Pessumal Bhrojraj, an Indian national who immigrated to the Philippines around 1917, sought to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The State opposed his petition, raising objections regarding his compliance with naturalization requirements. 2. Procedural History: Bhrojraj filed his petition for naturalization on September 18, 1961. The Court of First Instance of Surigao del Norte granted his petition on July 7, 1963. The Republic of the Philippines, as the oppositor, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The State's appeal challenges the lower court's decision primarily on two grounds: first, the petitioner's alleged failure to file a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen one year prior to filing his petition, arguing that his absences from the Philippines negate continuous residence; and second, the petitioner's alleged lack of a known lucrative trade or lawful occupation, as his reported income was deemed insufficient to support his family and meet the naturalization criteria.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner complied with the requirement of filing a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines one year prior to the institution of the proceedings. Whether the petitioner's absences from the Philippines were compatible with the requirement of continuous residence. Whether the petitioner possessed a known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation with sufficient income to support his family.
Ruling
The judgment under review is reversed, and the petition for naturalization of Pessumal Bhrojraj is dismissed. Costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of declaration of intention: The Court held that the filing of a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines one year prior to the institution of naturalization proceedings is a mandatory requirement. Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law provides an exception for those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty years or more before filing their application. However, the petitioner's claim of continuous residence was challenged by his own testimony, which revealed four visits to India, each lasting five to seven months, in 1919, 1923, 1938, and 1948. These absences, by the standard set in Sy See vs. Republic, preclude the petitioner from being considered as having resided continuously in the Philippines as required. Since the petitioner did not discharge the burden of proving that these absences were compatible with continuous residence, he failed to qualify for the exception. Consequently, without the required declaration of intention, the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction to entertain his petition, rendering the entire proceeding null and void. On the issue of continuous residence: The Court found that the petitioner's four extended visits to his native India, each lasting five to seven months, were not compatible with the statutory requirement of continuous residence in the Philippines. Citing Sy See vs. Republic, the Court clarified that such prolonged absences interrupt the continuity of residence necessary for naturalization. The burden was on the petitioner to prove that these absences did not negate the continuity of his residence, a burden he failed to discharge. Therefore, he could not avail himself of the exception to the declaration of intention requirement based on prolonged residence. On the issue of lucrative trade and income: The Court found that the petitioner failed to comply with the qualification of having some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. While he claimed to be a merchant since 1917 with an annual income of P6,000.00, his income tax return for 1960 showed a net income of only P2,097.43. The Court determined that this income was insufficient to support his wife and four children, three of whom were studying, especially considering the low purchasing power of the peso and the increased cost of living. The Court also ruled that pensions received from his sons could not be added to his income to make it lucrative, as such pensions are contingent, speculative, and precarious. Even if these pensions were included, his total income would still fall short of the requirement for lucrative income as of the time of filing his application.
Main Doctrine
Failure to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen of the Philippines one year prior to the institution of naturalization proceedings, absent any statutory exception, renders the entire proceeding null and void for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, an applicant must possess a known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation, and the income derived therefrom must be sufficient to support a family, considering the cost of living and purchasing power of the currency.