Tan v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Feliciano T. Tan, a Chinese citizen born in Larena, Oriental Negros, filed a petition for naturalization. He alleged to have been born on June 9, 1931, and to have resided in Larena, Oriental Negros, since birth. At the time of filing, he was employed as a salesman in Manila with a monthly salary of two hundred pesos. He claimed to possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization and asserted exemption from filing a declaration of intention. He identified Esperidion G. Heceta and Cornelio Padayhag as his character witnesses. 2. Procedural History: The petition for naturalization was filed on June 16, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition. The trial court rendered a decision granting the petition. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, assigning several errors allegedly committed by the lower court. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, as the appellant, contends that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction, as the petitioner had not resided in Oriental Negros for at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition. The appellant also argues that the court erred in allowing witnesses not listed in the petition to testify and in not dismissing the petition for failure to state all former places of residence. Furthermore, the Republic asserts that the petitioner's income of two hundred pesos per month was not lucrative. The Supreme Court found the assignments of error regarding jurisdiction, failure to state all residences, and lucrative income to be meritorious.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros had jurisdiction over the naturalization petition. Whether the petition was fatally defective for failure to state all former places of residence. Whether the petitioner had a lucrative income.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros granting the petition for naturalization is reversed, and the petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction: The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros lacked jurisdiction because the petitioner had not resided in Oriental Negros for at least one year immediately preceding the filing of his petition. The records showed that the petitioner had been residing in Manila since March 1960, up to and during the hearing of the petition, which was filed on June 21, 1961. This violated the Revised Naturalization Law, which vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Court of First Instance of the province where the petitioner has resided for at least one year immediately prior to filing the petition. The Court cited previous rulings in Chin Cuan Go vs. Republic, Cheng Yen vs. Republic, and Lim vs. Republic to support this conclusion. On the issue of failure to state all former places of residence: The Court found the petition fatally defective because it failed to state all of the petitioner's former places of residence. The petitioner's residences included Larena, Oriental Negros (birth to 1947), Dumaguete, Oriental Negros (1947-1949), Manila (1949-1951), Dumaguete City (1951-1952), Cebu City (1952-1954), and Manila (March 1960 to present). The petition only alleged continuous residence in the Philippines for thirty years and residence in Larena, Oriental Negros. The Court consistently held that such omissions affect the court's authority to act on the case, citing Yap vs. Republic, Nerio Tan vs. Republic, Agueda Go vs. Republic, Tan vs. Republic, and So vs. Republic. On the issue of lucrative income: The Court ruled that the petitioner's monthly income of P200.00 at the time of filing the petition was not considered lucrative, based on the standard set in previous decisions of the Supreme Court. This finding, when considered with the other fatal defects, contributed to the dismissal of the petition.
Main Doctrine
A court of first instance lacks jurisdiction to hear a naturalization petition if the petitioner has not resided in the province for at least one year immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Furthermore, failure to state all former places of residence in the petition renders the application fatally defective.