IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF MANUEL SPIRIG LIM TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANUEL SPIRIG LIM, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPO…

Appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
City (Judge Gregorio D. Montejo presiding) authorizing the oath-taking
as a naturalized Filipino citizen of the petitioner-appellee, Manuel
Spirig Lim.

Petitioner Lim obtained from the aforesaid court a judgment, dated 4
April 1959, granting his petition for naturalization, filed on 2 May
1958. Two years thereafter, he asked that he be permitted to take his
oath of allegiance. This petition was opposed by the appellant,
Republic of the Philippines, on the ground that petitioner Lim does not
have a lucrative employment and does not possess a sufficient knowledge
of the Philippine Government and the Constitution. After hearing, the
court a quo, in its order on 24 March 1962, declared that petitioner
Lim had complied with the requirements of Republic Act 530, and ordered
the registration of its decision and authorized his oath-taking.

On 14 April 1962, or twenty-one (21) days after the issuance of the
appealed order, petitioner Lim took his oath of allegiance. Judge
Gregorio D. Montejo administered the oath. On that same day,
oppositor-appellant Republic appealed.

The evidence for the petitioner purported to show that he is single
and a resident of Governor Lim Avenue, Zamboanga City; that he is an
engineering student in Manila and at the same time is employed as a
purchasing agent of two business establishments in Zamboanga City,
namely, Goodly Commercial Company and Sin Ho Commercial; that at the
time he filed his petition for naturalization his monthly salary was
P150.00, but at the time he filed his petition to take oath he had a
monthly income of P250.00.

Sin Ho Commercial is, however, owned and managed by the petitioner’s
father, and the supposed increase in income at about the time of the
filing of the petition to take oath was supposedly derived from this
company.

Testifying in his own behalf, the petitioner openly stated that his
father should have offered him more “income”, if needed, to satisfy the
requirements of the law (T.S.N., p. 17, Magallanes). The aforesaid
circumstances not only render the claimed income as dubious (Lee vs.
Republic, L-20148, 30 April 1965) but also show that petitioner’s
claimed income was adjusted for naturalization purposes and is not true
income at all.

Petitioner’s alleged salary from Goodly Commercial Company, which is
P150.00 a month, is far too meager to meet the law’s requirement on the
lucrativeness of an applicant’s employment (Sy Ang Hoc vs. Republic,
L-12400, 29 March 1961; Velasco vs. Republic, L-12214, 25 May 1960; Tan
vs. Republic, L-14861, 17 March 1961; Zacarias vs. Republic, L-14860,
30 May 1961; Lee vs. Republic, L-20148, 30 April 1965; Hua vs.
Republic, L-21400, 31 May 1966; Keng Giok vs. Republic, L-13347, 31
August 1961; Tan vs. Republic, L-16013, 30 March 1963; Ong vs.
Republic, L-15764, 19 May 1961; OngTai vs. Republic, L-19418, 23 Dec.
1964; Uy Tian vs. Republic, L-19913, 30 July 1965). Not only this; but
the income of an applicant, like any other qualification, must be
determined as possessed by him on the date the application was filed,
not subsequently thereto.

Since the order authorizing the petitioner’s oath-taking, issued on
24 March 1962, has not become final or executory, the actual
administration of the oath on 14 April 1962 was premature, and
constitutes an attempt to render nugatory the right of the government
to appeal (Ong So vs. Republic, L-20145, 30 June 1965); indeed, the
oath-taking before the same judge who penned the order authorizing it
(and who ought to have known the non-finality of his order) is
unfortunate, the more so as there is nothing in the record to justify
the haste.

While the foregoing would suffice to reverse the order appealed
from, this Court can not overlook that during the reception of the
evidence on 10 June 1961 on the oath-taking petitioner Lim admitted
ignorance about the essentials of Philippine Government (T.S.N., 10
June 1961, p. 20) and the Constitution, prompting the fiscal to move
for the outright denial of the petition and the court to remark: “It is
apparent that Petitioner does not deserve to be Filipino citizen
according to the records” and “x x x. Witness is found out to have no
working knowledge of the constitution as he does not even know the
preamble of the constitution when asked by the Fiscal.” After argument
between petitioner’s counsel and the fiscal, the court stated: “If the
Court believes that Petitioner has the rights to take oath then you
(referring to petitioner’s counsel) can notify him until such time he
is qualified” (T.S.N., 10 June 1961, p. 26). Session was adjourned at
11:45 A. M. and the case postponed for 17 June 1961. There is no record
of a hearing on 17 June 1961, but on the hearing on 17 March 1962 for
the reception of “Additional Evidence for the Petitioner”, petitioner
Lim testified again and, upon examination by his counsel, recited verbatim the preamble of the Constitution and many provisions of the Bill of Rights; he knew what is an ex-post facto
law and certain amendments to the Constitution. Lim admitted having
learned these details after the previous hearing when the fiscal
objected to his taking the oath (T.S.N., 17 March 1962, pp. 14-18).

The proceedings and testimonies narrated above show that the
petitioner’s belief in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution was non-existent when he applied for citizenship. His
knowledge of these principles were then vague, and his belief in them
insincere. Otherwise, he would have displayed knowledge of the basic
principles at the first day of trial to the same extent as at the
succeeding occasion.

On the part of the trial court, it was irregular for it, and this
Court hereby registers its disapproval, to have re-tried the case when
the petitioner was felt qualified, since at first it already found him
not qualified. The practice is not only unfair and disorderly but also
opens courts to charges of favoritism.

For the foregoing reasons, the appealed order, the oath administered
pursuant thereto, the corresponding certificate of citizenship issued,
if any, and its registration, if made, are hereby cancelled and
declared null and void. Costs against appellee Manuel Spirig Lim.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruuiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Barrera, J., no part.