G.R. No. L-29499. March 31, 1971
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHUA SIU TING TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHUA SIU TING, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPEL…
FERNANDO, J.:
This is an appeal by the oppositor
Republic of the Philippines from an order of the then Judge, now Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals, Guillermo S. Santos of November 4, 1964 finding
appellee Chua Siu Ting, as
petitioner in a naturalization proceeding, to have complied with the
requirements under Republic Act No. 530, allowing him to take his oath of
allegiance as citizen and directing the Clerk of Court to issue the
corresponding certificate of naturalization in favor of petitioner. His petition for naturalization was granted
as far back as September 16, 1961 in a decision rendered by the then Judge, now
Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, Antonio G. Lucero. The Republic of the Philippines, as oppositor-appellant, filed its brief on December 8, 1969
assigning as the first error committed by the lower court the granting of
petition for naturalization despite what it considered as fatal jurisdictional
defects, namely, the failure of the petitioner to state his baptismal name, his
former residence at Villalobos Street, Manila, where he resided from 1936 to
1945 as well as the failure to attach his certificate of arrival issued by the
Commissioner of Immigration. The other
error assigned was that the petition should not be granted in view of the
applicant’s lack of lucrative income.
Subsequently, on January
16, 1971, a motion to remand the case to the lower court for
further proceeding was filed by petitioner-appellee
alleging that after reading the brief for appellant Republic of the Philippines
and taking into account the recent decisions of this Court in several
naturalization cases, the objections raised were well-founded and
meritorious. He was therefore
constrained to request the remand of the case to the lower court for further
proceeding to enable him to file an amended petition for naturalization
complying with the requirements of the law and curing the defects as pointed
out by the government. By resolution of February 15, 1971, this Court
required the Solicitor General to comment on the aforesaid motion. Then on February 23, 1971, the Republic of
the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, submitted its comment stating
“that it has no objection to the petitioner-appellee’s
motion for the remand of this case to the lower court for further proceedings,
provided that the appealed orders be vacated and the petitioner be required to
amend the petition in accordance with the opposition of the Government.”[1]
Thereafter, by resolution of February 26, 1971, this Court required petitioner-appellee to file a reply to said comment. Such a reply was duly filed on March 6, 1971
and was worded thus: “[Comes] now
the petitioner-appellee thru the undersigned counsel
and most respectfully manifests that he is in conformity to the comment of the
Solicitor General and once the case is remanded to the [lower court], he binds
to amend or submit an amended petition for naturalization in accordance with
the opposition of the Government and further requests and moves that the
appealed orders made by the Solicitor General be vacated.”[2]
WHEREFORE, conformably to the above motion, the decision
of September 16, 1961 granting the petition for naturalization of petitioner
Chua Siu Ting as well as the order of November 4,
1964 finding that he had complied with the requirements under Republic Act No.
530 and allowing him to take his oath of allegiance as Filipino citizen as well
as directing the Clerk of Court to issue his certificate of naturalization in
his favor after taking such oath of allegiance are hereby vacated and set aside
and declared of no further force and effect, without prejudice to petitioner
filing a new petition for naturalization.
Without pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Barredo and
Makasiar, JJ., did
not take part.
[1]
Comment.
[2]
Reply to Comments.