IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF TAN TEK CHIAN ALIAS JOSE TAN, TAN TEK CHIAN ALIAS JOSE TAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-…

Tan versus Republic

The Case

This is the case of Tan Tek Chian, also known as Jose Tan, against the Republic of the Philippines. It is a naturalization case. The petitioner obtained a grant of Philippine citizenship from the trial court, and the Republic later moved to have that grant annulled. The Supreme Court decided the matter in January 1981. The case matters because it fixes a single, decisive date in naturalization law: the date the certificate of naturalization is issued. It also settles the reach of an older ruling, the Ong Son Cui doctrine, which required strict publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette. For a reviewee, this case is the clean illustration of a jurisdictional defect that can destroy a certificate of citizenship years after it was issued.

Procedural History

The trial court, through then Judge Guillermo S. Santos, had earlier granted the petition for naturalization in a decision dated June 9, 1955. After the petitioner took his oath and received his certificate of citizenship, the Republic sought to reopen the matter. On September 26, 1962, the same trial court issued an order declaring the naturalization decision null and void and cancelling the certificate of citizenship. The petitioner appealed that order to the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed the appealed order.

Facts

Tan Tek Chian, also known as Jose Tan, filed a petition for naturalization. The trial court granted the petition in a decision dated June 9, 1955. The decision, however, was not immediately executory. Under the naturalization law, a waiting period of two years had to pass, and then the court had to find, after due notice and hearing, that the applicant had complied with the additional requirements. Only after that order, and after taking the requisite oath, would the status of a naturalized citizen attach.

On May 29, 1957, the Supreme Court promulgated its decision in Ong Son Cui against the Republic. That decision required literal adherence to the statutory requirement of publishing the notice of hearing in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette. Failure to comply was a defect jurisdictional in character. The petitioner took his oath on July 20, 1957, about two months after Ong Son Cui was promulgated, and the corresponding certificate of naturalization was issued to him after that date.

Years later, the Republic challenged the grant. The trial court, in its order of September 26, 1962, declared the naturalization decision null and void and cancelled the certificate. It noted that Ong Son Cui was promulgated on May 29, 1957, while the petitioner took his oath only on July 20, 1957. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Ong Son Cui doctrine, requiring publication of the notice of hearing in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette, applies to a naturalization certificate issued after May 29, 1957, even if the naturalization decision was rendered before that date.
• Whether or not the decision granting naturalization and the certificate of citizenship issued to Tan Tek Chian must be annulled and cancelled.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute directly. It construes the publication requirement as laid down in Ong Son Cui against the Republic, which the Court restates through its own prior ruling in Gan Tsitung against the Republic. The Court states the rule in these words:

The Court holds that the doctrine laid down in the Ong Son Cui case shall apply and affect the validity of certificates of naturalization issued after, not on or before, May 29, 1957.

This fixes the cut-off date: certificates issued after May 29, 1957 are governed by the strict publication rule.

The Court also explains why the date of the certificate, and not the date of the decision, controls:

No right is vested before the rendition of judgment, and, hence, could be affected thereby.

This means a pending case creates no vested right, so a new doctrine may reach it.

Finally, the Court ties citizenship to the certificate and the oath:

Besides, the status of a naturalized citizen of the Philippines does not attach except upon issuance of the corresponding certificate of naturalization, subsequently to the order aforementioned; and the taking of the requisite oath.

This is the anchor of the ruling: citizenship attaches only upon issuance of the certificate after the order and the oath.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Ong Son Cui doctrine applies to certificates of naturalization issued after May 29, 1957, not to those issued on or before that date. The Court relied on Gan Tsitung against the Republic, which it said laid the problem to rest, and which was reaffirmed in Chan Tek Lao against the Republic. The Court explained that no right is vested before judgment, so the doctrine may apply to cases still pending when it was adopted. It also explained that a naturalization decision does not become executory until the two-year waiting period has passed and the court has found compliance with the additional requirements of Republic Act Number 530. Citizenship, the Court stressed, attaches only upon issuance of the certificate and the taking of the oath.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court's order of September 26, 1962 was correct. The petitioner took his oath on July 20, 1957, about two months after Ong Son Cui was promulgated, and his certificate was issued after that date. The Court quoted the trial court's observation that Ong Son Cui was promulgated on May 29, 1957 while Tan Tek Chian took his oath only on July 20, 1957. It added, through Justice Holmes, that law like morality consists in drawing a line somewhere. Since the certificate came after Ong Son Cui, the grant of naturalization could not stand.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the publication of the notice of hearing in three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette is a jurisdictional requirement in naturalization proceedings, and failure to comply invalidates the grant. Second, the Ong Son Cui doctrine applies to certificates of naturalization issued after May 29, 1957, not to those issued on or before that date. Third, no right is vested before judgment, so a pending naturalization case may be affected by a new doctrine even if the notice was published earlier. Fourth, the status of a naturalized citizen attaches only upon issuance of the certificate of naturalization, after the order finding compliance with the additional requirements and after the taking of the oath. These rules flow from the quoted lines of Gan Tsitung, which the Court adopts as settled law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order. The decision of June 9, 1955 granting the petition for naturalization of Tan Tek Chian was annulled and set aside, and his certificate of citizenship was cancelled. The Republic prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: it is the issuance of the certificate of naturalization, not the date of the decision, that is the decisive date, so the Ong Son Cui doctrine reaches certificates issued after May 29, 1957. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdictional publication requirement and the rule that no right is vested before judgment in naturalization proceedings.