IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN SANG ALIAS CIIUA TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES; TAN SANG ALIAS CIIUA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES…

Tan Sang versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is Tan Sang versus Republic of the Philippines, a naturalization case decided by the Supreme Court in January 1965. Tan Sang, a citizen of the Republic of China, asked the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental to admit him as a Filipino citizen. The Republic opposed him, and when the trial court ruled in his favor, the Government appealed. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the strict, almost unforgiving standards of the Revised Naturalization Law: the mandatory certificate of arrival, the exemption from the declaration of intention, the requirement of a lucrative income, and the quality of character witnesses. It is a favorite of examiners because it shows the Court denying naturalization on several independent grounds at once.

Procedural History

Tan Sang filed his application for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental in September 1960. The Republic filed its opposition in September 1961, and the petitioner replied in October 1961. After trial, the trial court rendered its decision in April 1962, finding the petitioner entitled to naturalization. The Republic appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court on that appeal. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and denied the petition.

Facts

Tan Sang was born in Yung Eh, China, in July 1902. He arrived in Cebu in November 1912 and has resided in the Philippines since then, in Cebu and, from 1950 onward, in Ozamiz City. He is married and has nine children, two of whom are already married. When the petition was filed, four of his unmarried children were still minors, and he sent his children to schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any nationality or race.

He did not present his certificate of arrival, nor did he include it in his petition. His explanation was that the Bureau of Immigration took the certificate from him and issued in its place an Immigrant Certificate of Residence. He also did not prove that he complied with the Alien Registration Law as to his minor children.

His income came from his business, Sin Beng Trading. He testified that he earned an average of 5,000 pesos annually, and his income tax returns showed net incomes of 3,790 pesos and 99 centavos in 1960, 4,779 pesos and 75 centavos in 1959, and 8,019 pesos and 10 centavos in 1958. His character witnesses were Maximo Lago, the City Treasurer of Ozamiz, and Gregorio Calit, a Bureau of Internal Revenue examiner who handled the books of Sin Beng Trading.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention.
• Whether or not the petition is invalid for non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival.
• Whether or not the petitioner's conduct is irreproachable, there being no proof of his compliance with the Alien Registration Law as to his minor children.
• Whether or not the petitioner has a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation.
• Whether or not the petitioner's character witnesses are credible persons.

Applicable Provisions

Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, on the exemption from the declaration of intention, provides:

Persons who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing their application, may be naturalized without having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.

This provision bears on the first issue, because the petitioner's long residence and the schooling of his children would excuse him from the declaration of intention.

Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, on the contents of the petition, requires the certificate of arrival to be included, and the Court treats this requirement as mandatory.

The petition shall also state the date and place of the applicant's arrival in the Philippines and the name of the vessel or other means of transportation, and shall be accompanied by a certificate of arrival issued by the Bureau of Immigration.

This provision bears on the second issue, because the petitioner never included the certificate in his petition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention. He had resided continuously in the Philippines for more than thirty years before filing, and he gave primary and secondary education to all his children in schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petition is invalid for non-inclusion of the certificate of arrival. The defect is fatal. The statute expressly requires inclusion of the certificate as part of the petition, and the requirement is mandatory. The excuse that the Bureau of Immigration took the certificate and issued an Immigrant Certificate of Residence in its place does not save the petition. The petitioner should have secured a certified copy of his certificate of arrival if one had really been issued and adduced it as the law requires.

On the third issue, the Court held that the absence of proof of compliance with the Alien Registration Law as to his minor children is not unfavorable to the petition. Compliance with that law is not one of the items specifically required to be established in naturalization proceedings, and it was for the Republic to prove that he failed to comply.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the petitioner does not possess a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. By his own evidence his annual income was insufficient. An annual income of 5,980 pesos was held insufficient for a married applicant with three children, and an income of 6,300 pesos a year was held inadequate for a married petitioner with but one child. The petitioner here had nine children.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the character witnesses were not qualified. For character witnesses to vouch for an applicant's good moral character, they must have intimate knowledge of the applicant. Professional or business dealings alone do not provide a sufficient basis for deriving such knowledge. Lago and Calit knew the petitioner only on a professional and business level, and Calit admitted that he was not close with the petitioner's family and could not even state the name of the petitioner's wife.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Section 6 of the Revised Naturalization Law, an applicant who has resided continuously in the Philippines for thirty years or more before filing is exempt from the declaration of intention, provided he has given primary and secondary education to all his children in public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. Second, the inclusion of the certificate of arrival in the petition, as required by Section 7, is mandatory, and its omission is a fatal defect. Third, compliance with the Alien Registration Law is not among the items specifically required in naturalization proceedings, so the burden is on the Republic to prove non-compliance. Fourth, the applicant must have a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation, and an income that is modest relative to the size of his family does not satisfy this requirement. Fifth, character witnesses must have intimate knowledge of the applicant; professional or business dealings alone are not enough.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and denied the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the certificate of arrival is a mandatory part of the petition, and its omission is fatal. Examiners like to use this case to test the exemption from the declaration of intention under Section 6, the sufficiency of income, and the requirement that character witnesses have intimate knowledge of the applicant.