IN RE: PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Republic versus Jian Chen Xie

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, against Jian Chen Xie, also known as Jose Sia, a Chinese national who sought to become a Filipino by judicial naturalization. The Republic appeals from a trial court judgment granting the petition. The case matters because it is a compact review of the mandatory jurisdictional requirements of the Revised Naturalization Act, and of how the Supreme Court weighs substantial compliance against the strict letter of the law.

Procedural History

Jian Chen Xie filed his petition for naturalization before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222. After publication, posting, hearing, and the presentation of the petitioner and two character witnesses, the trial court granted the petition in a decision dated December 17, 2012. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Republic elevated the matter to the Supreme Court, which resolved the appeal and likewise affirmed.

Facts

Jian Chen Xie was born in Fukien, China. He entered the Philippines through the port of Manila on July 27, 1983 as a temporary visitor, as shown by his Alien Certificate of Registration. His status was later adjusted to lawful permanent residence, as reflected in his Immigration Certificate of Residence. He resided in Manila, then Caloocan City, and since 2001 in Quezon City. He married a Chinese citizen, with whom he has two minor children enrolled at PACE Academy, where Philippine History, Government and Civics are taught.

He is a co-owner, holding a forty percent share, of Antar Trading Company, a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission engaged in hardware, construction, and electrical supplies, reporting an average yearly income of 3,400,000 pesos. He is also a partner in a restaurant. He filed with the Office of the Solicitor General, at least one year before the petition, a declaration under oath of his bona fide intention to become a Filipino citizen.

On May 19, 2009 he filed his petition for naturalization. The trial court set the hearing and ordered publication. The petition and order were published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in the Daily Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, and copies were posted in the Quezon City Hall and near the trial court. He presented himself and two employees as witnesses, and offered clearances from the National Bureau of Investigation, the Quezon City police, the city prosecutor, and the Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for naturalization in light of the requirements of Section 9 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended.
• Whether or not the petitioner established by satisfactory and competent evidence that he complied with the requirements of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, provides:

SECTION 7. Petition for Citizenship. — Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and former places of residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or married and if the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act; and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition.

This provision supplies the contents of the petition and the requirement of a certificate of arrival, which the Republic says was not complied with.

Section 9 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, provides:

SECTION 9. Notification and Appearance. — Immediately upon the filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court to publish the same at petitioner's expense, once a week for three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a general notice of the hearing posted in a public and conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of the last publication of the notice. The clerk shall, as soon as possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Justice, the Provincial Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary of the Province and the justice of the peace of the municipality wherein the petitioner resides.

This provision fixes the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting, which the Republic says were not met.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction. The Republic argued that the petitioner failed to state the date and place of his entry and to attach a Certificate of Arrival, invoking the rule that the certificate must be made part of the petition. The Court answered that other proof of lawful admission may be attached in lieu of the certificate. The petitioner attached his Alien Certificate of Registration and his Immigration Certificate of Residence, and explained his lawful entry as a temporary visitor in 1983, later adjusted to lawful permanent residence. The Court also found that the order of the trial court contained all the details required by Section 9, and that the petition and order were published once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted in public places.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner complied with the requirements of the law. He established a lucrative trade or lawful occupation through his forty percent share in Antar Trading Company and his partnership in a restaurant. On the use of an alias without judicial authority, the Court held that the Anti-Alias Law was enacted to curb the practice of adopting scores of different names, and that the petitioner used only one alias, by which he is known in the business community, not shown to be fictitious or used for unscrupulous purposes or to deceive the public. On good moral character, the Court relied on the clearances and on the testimonies of the two witnesses, who personally knew the petitioner and vouched for his conduct, his social mingling with Filipinos, and his embrace of Filipino customs and traditions. The Court concluded that the petitioner showed substantial and formal compliance with Commonwealth Act Number 473.

Doctrine

First, the burden of proof in naturalization cases rests on the applicant, who must show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the law. Second, the requirement of a Certificate of Arrival under Section 7 is mandatory, but other proof of lawful admission may be attached in lieu of it, such as an Alien Certificate of Registration and an Immigration Certificate of Residence. Third, the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting under Section 9 must be strictly observed, and the notice must set forth the name, birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place of his arrival, the names of his witnesses, and the date of hearing. Fourth, the use of a single alias known in the business community, not shown to be fictitious or used to deceive the public, does not violate the Anti-Alias Law. Fifth, a vouching witness must have actually known the applicant for the requisite period, because on his testimony the court must rely in deciding the merits of the petition.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting the petition for naturalization of Jian Chen Xie, also known as Jose Sia.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the Certificate of Arrival is mandatory, but other proof of lawful admission may be attached in its place, and substantial and formal compliance with the Revised Naturalization Act suffices. Examiners like to use this case on the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting, on the use of an alias, and on the competence of character witnesses in naturalization proceedings.