IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JACINTO UY TIAN HUA, JR. TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. JACINTO UY TIAN HUA, JR., VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPEL…

Jacinto Uy Tian versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is a naturalization case. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appeals from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya granting the petition of Jacinto Uy Tian, Junior, to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The case matters because it fixes two rules every reviewee must carry into the bar: the applicant's qualifications are measured as of the filing of his petition, and the omission of a previous residence from the petition and from the published notice is fatal to the application.

Procedural History

Jacinto Uy Tian, Junior, filed his petition for naturalization on September 14, 1960, before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. The trial court granted the petition. The Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal on the ground that the petitioner had no lucrative trade or occupation. Soon after that notice, the petitioner moved to reopen the case so that he could prove a larger income in 1961 and the acquisition of shares of stock in 1962. Over the Government's objection, the trial court granted the motion, received the additional evidence, and rendered a Supplemental Decision finding the new claim established and reiterating its original decision. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal by the Republic.

Facts

In his petition filed in September 1960, Jacinto Uy Tian, Junior, alleged that his income was 250 pesos a month, or 3,000 pesos a year. He supported this with the affidavit of Uy Tiong, assistant manager of the North Auto Supply, where the petitioner worked as a salesman, stating that the petitioner received a monthly income of 250 pesos from that enterprise.

After the Solicitor General gave notice of appeal, the petitioner moved to reopen the case. He sought to prove a gross income of 7,410 pesos and 62 centavos for the year 1961, and an investment in shares of stock worth 5,000 pesos in the Philippine Hygenic Servicing, Incorporated, assigned to him on February 1, 1962. The trial court granted the motion and, on the additional evidence, issued a Supplemental Decision reiterating the grant of naturalization.

The record also showed that before settling in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, the petitioner had lived at several addresses in Manila, on Alvarado Street, Reina Regente Street, and Pennsylvania Street. None of these previous residences was stated in his application, and none therefore appeared in the notice published in connection with it. His attesting witnesses were Francisca Gatchalian and Maria J. Lago, but the record contained nothing to show that they enjoyed a high reputation for probity in their community.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in reopening the case after the Solicitor General had filed a notice of appeal, for the purpose of proving qualifications acquired after the petition was filed.
• Whether or not the petitioner had a lucrative trade or occupation at the time he filed his petition.
• Whether or not the omission from the petition and the published notice of the petitioner's previous residences in Manila is fatal to his application.
• Whether or not the petitioner proved that his attesting witnesses were credible persons within the meaning of the Naturalization Law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2, fourth paragraph, of Commonwealth Act Number 473, the Revised Naturalization Law, provides:

He must have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation.

This is the requirement the Court measured against the petitioner's income of 250 pesos a month as of the filing of his petition.

The same Naturalization Law requires that the petition state the applicant's present and former places of residence, and that the notice of hearing publish those places. The Court applied that requirement when it held the omission of the Manila residences fatal, because the notice published did not inform the public of the places where the petitioner had lived.

The law likewise requires credible witnesses of good reputation. The Court applied that requirement when it found nothing in the record to show that the attesting witnesses enjoyed such a reputation for probity that their word could be taken at face value.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court committed a grave error in granting the motion to reopen. The motion was plainly prompted by the petitioner's realization that, on his own allegation of a meager 250 pesos a month, the Government stood a good chance of securing a reversal for lack of a lucrative trade or occupation. The Court added that, in any event, the additional evidence did not justify the decision appealed from.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner's qualification must be determined as of the time of the filing of his petition, which took place on September 14, 1960. At that time he had no other income than 250 pesos a month, which is insufficient to be lucrative within the purview of Section 2, fourth paragraph, of Commonwealth Act Number 473. His allegedly increased income in 1961 and the shares of stock acquired on February 1, 1962, cannot cure his lack of qualification when he commenced the case in 1960. The Court also observed that the income tax return on which the 1961 income was based was filed on April 1, 1962, several months after the case was submitted for decision, so its entries may have been influenced by the pendency of the naturalization case. And the alleged assignor of the shares was the petitioner's elder sister, who never took the witness stand.

On the third issue, the Court held that the omission of the previous Manila residences from the application, and consequently from the published notice, is fatal to the allowance of the application.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that it was not proven that the attesting witnesses were credible persons within the purview of the Naturalization Law.

Doctrine

First, the qualifications of an applicant for naturalization are determined as of the time of the filing of his petition. Income or property acquired afterwards cannot cure a lack of qualification at the commencement of the case.

Second, the requirement of a known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation under Section 2, fourth paragraph, of Commonwealth Act Number 473 is measured by the applicant's income at the time of filing. A meager income does not satisfy it.

Third, the applicant must state in his petition all his former places of residence, so that they may be published in the notice of hearing. The omission of a previous residence is fatal to the application.

Fourth, the applicant must prove that his attesting witnesses are credible persons of good reputation for probity in the community where they live. It is not enough to name them.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and entered another dismissing the petition, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: qualification for naturalization is measured as of the filing of the petition, and an omitted former residence is fatal. Examiners use this case to test the cut-off date for an applicant's qualifications and the jurisdictional effect of an incomplete petition and notice.