Republic v. Borromeo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Vidasto Tiu, a Chinese citizen born in Cebu City on February 2, 1939, filed a petition for naturalization. He stated he was single, employed as a salesman and insurance underwriter with an annual income of P4,200.00, and claimed exemption from filing a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines. The petition was published and subsequently granted by the Court of First Instance of Cebu on September 30, 1963, admitting Tiu to Philippine citizenship. 2. Procedural History: After the initial grant of citizenship, Tiu moved for a final hearing to take his oath. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General's office, opposed this motion, seeking to set aside the original decision. The Republic argued that the petition was fatally defective due to the failure to file a declaration of intention and the omission of another name Tiu had used. The trial court denied the Republic's opposition and subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Republic then filed the present petition for certiorari against the trial court's orders. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its orders of June 15, 1966, and October 27, 1966. The core arguments are that the naturalization petition was fatally defective because Tiu failed to file a declaration of intention, not being legally exempt, and because the publication of the petition was inadequate, having omitted another name (Tiu Yee Sang) by which he was known, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction. The Republic contends these defects rendered the lower court's orders invalid.
Issue(s)
Whether the omission of the alias name "Tiu Yee Sing" in the published petition for naturalization renders the publication defective and deprives the court of jurisdiction. Whether the applicant, Vidasto Tiu, was exempt from filing a declaration of intention to become a Filipino citizen. Whether the applicant satisfied the educational requirements for exemption from filing a declaration of intention.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The orders of the lower court dated June 15, 1966, and October 27, 1966, are reversed and set aside. The application of Vidasto Tiu to be admitted to Philippine citizenship is ordered disapproved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the defective publication due to omission of alias: The Court held that the non-inclusion of the name "Tiu Yee Sing," by which the applicant was known at one time or another, in the published petition made the publication defective. This defect deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case, as people who might have known him by that name were prevented from coming forward to testify. The Court cited previous rulings, such as Wong Chui vs. Republic, which held that the use of an alias not included in the publication violates the Anti-Alias Law and warrants denial of the application. On the requirement of a declaration of intention: The Court found that the applicant failed to comply with Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law, which mandates the filing of a declaration of intention one year prior to the petition, unless exempted. The exemption applies only to aliens born in the Philippines who received primary and secondary education in Philippine public schools or recognized private educational institutions not limited to any race or nationality. The applicant, Vidasto Tiu, did not fall within this exempted class. On the educational requirements for exemption: While the applicant's birth in the Philippines was established, there was a lack of proof that he satisfied the educational requirement for exemption. The certifications regarding the Cebu Chinese High School (now Cebu Eastern Institute) did not cover the period of Tiu's primary and secondary education. Furthermore, the unverified statements and certifications were deemed insufficient and hearsay evidence, as they were not presented in court for cross-examination. Therefore, the applicant's failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing a declaration of intention, not being legally exempt, was fatal to his petition.
Main Doctrine
A petition for naturalization is fatally defective if the applicant fails to file a declaration of intention as required by law, unless exempted, and if an alias name used by the applicant is not included in the published petition, as such omissions deprive the court of jurisdiction.