IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. OH HEK HOW, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

A decision granting his
petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines having been rendered,
on January 16, 1964, petitioner Oh Hek How filed, on
January 17, 1966, a motion alleging that he had complied with the requirements
of Republic Act No. 530 and praying that he be allowed to take his oath of
allegiance as such citizen and is­sued the corresponding certificate of
naturalization.  Upon petitioner’s
testimony, taken on February 9, 1966, the date set for the hearing of said
motion, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del
Norte issued forthwith an order authorizing the taking of said oath.  On that same date, petitioner took it and the
certificate of naturalization was issued to him.

The Government seasonably
gave notice of its intention to ap­peal from said order of February
9, 1966 and filed
its record on appeal.  Before the same
was approved, it, also, moved to cancel petitioner’s certificate of
naturalization, upon the ground, among others, that it was issued and the oath
taken before said order of February 9, 1966, had become final and executory.  Acting
upon this motion and petitioner’s opposition thereto, the court issued, on
October 3, 1966, an order granting the
motion, but, at the same time, authorizing the taking of a new oath by the
petitioner and the issuance in his favor of ano­ther certificate of
naturalization, after thirty (30) days from notice to the Solicitor
General.  Thereafter, or on November
26, 1966, the court
approved the record on appeal and, once more, authorized the petitioner to
“take a new or proper oath to validate the first one made on February 9,
1966.” The case is now
before us on said re­cord on appeal filed by the Government.

At the outset, it is obvious that the oath of allegiance taken by
petitioner on November 28, 1966, and the certificate of naturali­zation issued
to him in pursuance thereof, as well as the authority given therefor
by the lower court, are null and void. 
Indeed, the order of February 9, had not – and up to the present has not
– become final and executory, in view of the appeal
duly taken by the Govern­ment.  What is
more, petitioner’s second oath was taken, not only after the filing of the
notice of appeal^[1]
and the submission of the re­cord on appeal, but, also, after the approval
thereof.  In other words, the lower court
had already lost its jurisdiction over the case.^[2]

Again, petitioner’s net income in 1960 and 1961 was P3,945.65 and
P5,105.79, respectively, or from about P330 to P425 a month.  His income tax return for 1962, filed
subsequently to the institution of this case, showed a net income of P6,485.50
for that year, or about P540 a month. 
Considering that petitioner has a wife and three (3) children, one of them of school age, at the time of the
filing of his application for naturalization, his aforementioned income is not
a lucrative one.  Indeed, it has been
held that the following incomes are not lucrative, from the viewpoint of our
naturalization laws, namely: 
(1) P4,2003or P5,000 a year4 for one married, with five (5) children; (2)
P6,000 a year for one married, with two (2) minor children5; and (3)
P6,0006 or P6,300 a year7 for one married, with only one (1) child.

Lastly, it is conceded that petitioner has not secured from the
Minister of the Interior of Nationalist China the permission required by the
laws thereof for a valid renunciation of his Chinese citizenship.  In Go A. Leng v.
Republic,8 a decision granting the application for
naturalization of a Chinese national was reversed by this Court, upon the
ground, among others, of “his failure to secure” the aforemen­tioned
permission.

It is argued that the same is not required by our laws and that
the naturalization of an alien, as a citizen of the Philippines, is gov­erned
exclusively by such laws and cannot be controlled by any foreign law.  Section 12 of Commonwealth Act No. 473
provides, however, that before the naturalization certificate is issued, the
petitioner shall “solemnly swear”, inter alia,
that he renounces “absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to
any foreign prince, potentate” and particu­larly to the state “of
which” he is “a subject or citizen.” The obvious purpose of this
requirement is to divest him of his former nationality, before acquiring
Philippine citizenship, because, otherwise, he would have two nationalities and
owe allegiance to two (2) distinct sovereign­ties, which our laws do not
permit, except that, pursuant to Republic Act No. 2639, “the acquisition
of citizenship by a natural born Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and
any friendly democratic Ibero-American countries
shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his Phi­lippine citizenship, if the law
of that country grants the same privi­lege to its citizens and such had been
agreed upon by treaty between the Philippines and the foreign country from which
citizenship is acquired.” The
question of how a Chinese citizen may strip himself of that status is
necessarily governed – pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of our Civil Code
– by the laws of China,
not by those of the Philippines.9 As a consequence, a Chinese national cannot be
naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines,
unless he has complied with the laws of Nationalist China requiring previous
permission of its Minister of the Interior for the renunciation of nationality.

The view to the contrary, adhered to in Parado
v. Republic,10 Chausintek
v. Republic11 and Lim so v. Republic,12 has been super­seded by our ruling in the
subsequent case of Go A. Leng v. Republic,13 which we hereby reiterate.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed, and the
oath of allegiance taken, on November 28, 1966, by petitioner Oh Hek How, as well as the certificate of naturalization
issued in pursuance thereto, are hereby declared null and void, with costs
against said petitioner, who is, moreover, directed to surrender the
aforementioned certificate of naturalization to the Clerk of the Court of First
Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, within ten (10) days
after this decision shall have become final.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dizon, Makalintal,
Sanchez, Castro, Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Reyes, Zaldivar, JJ., on leave.

^[1]
Qua v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21418, Dec. 31, 1965; Jose Syson v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-21199, May 29, 1967; Republic v. Santos, G.R. No. L-23919, July 29, 1968.

^[2]
Kwan Kwock How v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18521, Jan. 30, 1964; Tio Tek Chai
v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19112, Oct.
30, 1964; Lee v. Repub­lic, G.R. No. L-20148, April
30, 1965; Cheng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20013, March 30, 1965; Lee Ng Len v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20151,
March 31, 1965; Tan Huy Liong v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-21671, Feb. 28, 1966; Ong Kim Kong v.
Republic, G.R. No. L-20505, Feb. 28, 1966; Co Im Ty v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17919, July 30, 1966; Lim Eng Yu v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20809, Aug. 31, 1966; Yong Sai v. Republic, G.R.
No. L-20483, Sept. 30, 1966; Dy
Bu Si v. Re­public, G.R. No. L-22076, Oct. 29, 1966; Syson v. Republic, G.R.
No. L-21199, May 29, 1967; Go Yanko
v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21542, Aug. 10,
1967; Cu
King Nan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20490, June
29, 1968; Republic v. Santos, G.R. No. L-23919, July 29, 1968; Leon Te Poot v.
Republic, G.R. No. L­-20017, March
28, 1969.

3 Uy v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19578, October 27, 1964.

4
Tio Tek Chai
v. Republic, G.R. No. L-19112, October 30, 1964.

5
Ng v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21179, January 22, 1966.

6
Chua Lian Yan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-26416, April 25,
1969.

7
Tan v. Republic, G.R. No. L-16013, March 30, 1963.

8  G.R. No. L-19836, June 21, 1965.

9
Yañes de Barnuevo v.
Fuster, 29 Phil. 606; Babcock Templeton v.
Babcock, 52 Phil. 130; Gonzales v. Gonzales, 58 Phil. 67; Sikat v. Canson, 67 Phil.
207; Arca v. Javier, 95 Phil. 579, 584-585;
Vivo v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-25411. Oct. 26, 1968.

10
86 Phil. 340.

11
89 Phil. 4.

12
89 Phil. 74.

13
Supra.