G.R. No. L-22302. January 30, 1971
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF CHIU TEK YE, CHIU TEK YE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.
MAKASIAR, J.:
Petitioner-appellant Chiu Tek Ye
interposes this appeal (p. 88, rec.) from the orders dated March 25, 1963 and
August 22, 1963 (pp. 75-81, rec.) dismissing his petition for naturalization.
On June 10, 1954,
petitioner-appellant Chiu Tek Ye filed his petition
for naturalization before the Court of First Instance of Negros
Oriental (Exh. A, pp. 2-3, rec.),
which petition was published only once in the Official Gazette issue of August,
1954 and once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Vanguard, a newspaper
of general circulation in Dumaguete City (Exhs. E, E-1, E-2, E-3, F, F-1, and F-2), as well as
posted on the bulletin board of the court (Exh. H).
The petition does not allege that he is of good moral
character. Neither does it state that he
resided in the town of Zamboanguita,
Negros Oriental, during the Japanese occupation.
After trial, the court
rendered a decision dated November 17, 1958 granting his petition (pp. 45-52, rec.).
On January 27, 1959,
petitioner-appellant filed a motion ex parte to
withdraw his exhibits consisting of his immigrant certificate of residence (Exhs. C and B), identification
cards (Exhs. G-3 and Y-2), check-up certificate (Exh. G-4) and alien certificates of
registrations (Exhs. O, O-1 to O-8), on the
ground that he needed them for his projected trip around the Philippines. Said motion was granted by the court on the
same day; and immediately thereafter on that same day, January 27, 1959,
petitioner-appellant withdrew the aforementioned exhibits after signing a
receipt therefor at the bottom of his motion just
below the curt court order granting the same (pp. 53-54, rec.).
He did not file any declaration of intention, because he claims
that he is exempted therefrom by reason of the fact
that he has resided in the Philippines
continuously for over thirty years since his arrival in May, 1916 at the port
of Iloilo City from Amoy,
China, where he was born
on June 14, 1904. But he did not allege this in his petition.
In a decision dated January 22, 1963, the court, after due
hearing and finding that petitioner-appellant had complied with the
requirements of R. A. No. 530, authorized petitioner-appellant to take his oath
of allegiance and directed the issuance of a certificate of naturalization in
his favor (pp. 59-60, rec.).
On February 22, 1963, the Solicitor General thru the City
Attorney of Dumaguete City filed a motion to vacate
the decisions of November 17, 1958 and of January 22, 1963, respectively
granting his petition for naturalization and allowing him to take oath of
citizenship, on the ground that the petition is fatally defective and void ab initio because
petitioner-appellant did not file any declaration of intention from which he
is not exempt; and that the petitioner does not have a lucrative trade
considering that he has a wife and four children to support in 1963 and eight
children to support at the time he filed his petition in 1954 (pp. 61-63,
rec.).
The petitioner-appellant filed an opposition to the said motion
to vacate, to which the government filed a reply (pp. 64-74, rec.).
In an order dated March
25, 1963, the trial court set aside the decisions of November 17, 1958 and January 22, 1963 and dismissed the
petition (p. 75, rec.).
On April 20, 1963,
petitioner-appellant filed a motion to introduce further evidence and for the
reconsideration of the order dated March
25, 1963 (pp. 76-77, rec.).
In an order dated June 8,
1963, the trial court allowed defendant to adduce additional
evidence, which however the court found to be insufficient to support his
petition, for which reason the court in an order dated August 22, 1963 accordingly denied appellant’s
motion to set aside the order of March
25, 1963 (p. 81, rec.).
Hence,
this appeal.
We have repeatedly held that failure on the part of the petitioner
to aver in his petition that he is of good moral character is fatal; because
strict compliance with the requirements of the law is jurisdictional.[1]
His two character witnesses, Crescenciano
Ozoa and Buenaventura Zamora could not attest to his
conduct during the period of Japanese occupation from 1942 to 1945, for they
did not see him as he evacuated to Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental.
Moreover, as contended by the Solicitor General, his income of P1,800.00 per annum from 1954 to 1960 with a wife, five
children and a Chinese mother-in-law to support, or his yearly income of P4,200
since 1961 with a wife, four minor
children and a 76-year old (in 1961) mother-in-law to support is too inadequate to qualify him for
naturalization.
It should be noted also that in his 1961 tax census form (Exh. K), he stated that the members of his family consisted
of his wife, a 76-year old mother-in-law and seven children, two of whom were
already of age then and each earned P40.00 and P60.00 a month. Even if the combined income of the two
children amounting to P100.00 a month were to be considered in favor of the
petitioner, still a monthly income of P450.00 would be insufficient to maintain
a family of ten in Dumaguete
City.
His claim that he is paid by his son-in-law Zosimo
Dy, a naturalized citizen and husband of his eldest
daughter Natividad, a monthly salary of P80.00 since
January, 1963 as overseer of Zosimo’s coconut
plantation in Ayungon, Negros
Oriental, is incredible; because Zosimo could more
efficiently oversee his alleged coconut plantation as he resides in Ayungon than the petitioner who was already 59 years old in
1963 with still seven members of his family to take care of and who resides in Dumaguete City over fifty kilometers from Ayungon. But even
conceding that he earns since 1963 a total of P5,160.00
a year, still said income is insufficient to adequately maintain his family in Dumaguete City. An annual income of P8,867.24
in 1961 was not considered lucrative for an applicant with a wife and five children
to support, even if it increases every year.[2]
Furthermore, petitioner did not state, in his petition that he
resided during the period of three years of Japanese occupation in Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, to
enable the government to inquire into his conduct during that period in the
community where he was then living.
This, too, vitiates his petition.[3]
Petitioner-appellant, who claims exemption from filing a
declaration of intention, omitted to allege such exemption and the reasons therefor in his petition, which failure is also fatal to his petition and renders the same void.[4] An amended petition supplying such a deficiency should be treated as a new one and
published in accordance with Sec. 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law.[5]
Finally, petitioner-appellant failed to attach in his petition a
certificate of arrival as required by Sec. 7 of Com. Act No. 473, as amended,
which omission likewise nullifies his petition.
The reason for the requirement that the certificate of arrival should
form part of the petition is to prevent aliens, who illegally entered the Philippines,
from acquiring citizenship by naturalization.[6]
If, as he pretends, his certificate was taken back by the Bureau of Immigration
and in lieu thereof he was issued an immigrant’s certificate of residence, he
could have submitted the same or a certified true copy thereof.[7]
WHEREFORE, the orders of March 25, 1963 and August
22, 1963 are hereby affirmed, petitioner-appellant’s petition for
naturalization is dismissed, and the decision dated January 22, 1963 is hereby revoked. With costs against appellant.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
[1]
Tek vs. Republic, L-23383, Jan. 1971; Dy vs.
Republic, L-21958, Sept, 28,
1970; Fidelo vs. Republic,
L-17776, Sept. 29, 1965.
[2]
Keng Giok vs.
Republic, L-13347, Aug. 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 1090, 1093; Pin vs. Republic,
L-19577, Oct. 30, 1964; see also Dy vs.
Republic, L-21958, Sept. 28, 1970; Dy vs. Republic,
L-20482, Aug. 31, 1965; Chie vs. Republic, L-20169, Feb. 26, 1965.
[3]
Tek vs. Republic,
L-23383, Jan. 1971; Dy vs. Republic, supra,
Tiu vs. Republic, L-21448, Jan, 30, 1970.
[4]
Khan vs. Republic, L-1466, Oct.
28, 1960, 109 Phil.
855, 858-859.
[5]
Khan vs. Republic, supra.
[6]
Ang vs. Republic, L-12400, March 29, 1961, 1 SCRA 886, 889-90;
Chan vs. Republic, L-14460, June
30, 1960.
[7]
Chan vs. Republic, supra.