IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, MACDUFFIE TAN ALIAS MACARIO ONG, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

Appeal, taken by the Solicitor General, from an order of the
Court of First Instance of Agusan, dated February 3, 1966, the dis­positive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, the decision granting Philippine citizenship to
petitioner Macduffie Tan alias Macario
Ong is hereby ordered registered in accordance with
Republic Act No. 530.  He may now take
his oath of allegiance before this court, after which, he shall be entitled to
all the rights and privileges of a filipino
citizen.”

A decision having been rendered by said court, on December 10, 1963, which was amended
on January 22, 1964,
granting the Peti­tion of Macduffie Tan, alias
Macario Ong, for
naturalization as citi­zen of the Philippines,
he filed, on January 20, 1966,
a petition praying that he be allowed to take the corresponding oath of
allegiance.  This petition was granted by
the aforementioned order of February 3,
1966, on which date petitioner took said oath.  Hence, this appeal by the Solicitor General.

Upon a review of the records, We find that the appeal is well
taken.

In his application for naturalization, petitioner-appellee alleged that “his present place of residence
is Butuan City
and his former place of residence was Tangub, Misamis Occidental. ” It appears, however, and
petitioner admits it, that he had, also, resided in the City of Cebu,^[1]
which fact is not mentioned in his application, in violation of Section 7 of
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as, amended. 
Well settled is the rule that non-compliance with this provision is
fatal to the application for naturalization and even affects the jurisdiction
of the court to entertain it.^[2]

Then, again, according to said application for naturalization,
filed on April. 18, 1962, the average annual income of petitioner herein, who
is married and then had two (2) children, was P2,400.00 or P200.00 a
month.  Obviously, he then had,
therefore, no lucra­tive employment or occupation.  In a manifest attempt to offset this
infirmity, he testified, a little over a year later, that his income had leaped
to P500.00 a month or P6,000.00 a year; that he had a share of “about
P1,900.00” in a real estate left by his deceased father; and that his
brother Celestino Tan and their mother had donated
their respective shares therein to him, by virtue of an alleged affidavit
Exhibit BB, of the alleged donors, dated January 3, 1963, or several months after
the filing of petitioner’s application. 
Apart from being obviously suspicious, owing to the relation between
them, this alleged donation which is inexistent, for non-compliance with the
requirements essential therefor3 – and said increased income do not
and cannot affect the present case, inasmuch as the qualifications of an
applicant for naturalization are determined as of the date of the filing of
said application.4
At any rate, P500.00 a month is not a lucrative income for one who, like peti­tioner
herein, has a wife and three (3) children, a third one having been born before
petitioner took the witness stand.5

It may not be amiss to advert to the fact, heretofore repeatedly
stressed by this Court, that an order granting the petition to take the
requisite oath of allegiance of one who had previously obtained a decision
favorable to his application, is appealable,
and that it is, therefore, improper and illegal to authorize the taking of said
oath upon the issuance of said order and before the expira­tion of the reglementary period to perfect the appeal.6

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby reversed, and
this case dismissed, with costs against petitioner Macduffie
Tan alias Macario Ong.  Moreover, the oath of allegiance taken by him
and the certificate of naturalization, if any, issued to him, are null and
void, and petitioner is, accordingly, directed to forth­with surrender the
aforementioned certificate of naturalization, for its cancellation, to the
Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Butuan.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., did not take part.

^[1]
See Exhibits K-1 and K-2.

^[2]
Qua v. Republic, L-19834, Oct. 27, 1964; Ong
Tai v. Republic, L-19418, Dec. 23, 1964; Lee Ng Len v. Republic,
L-20151, March 31, 1965; Go v. Republic, L-20558, March 31, 1965; Tan Nga Kok v. Republic,
L-16767, June 30, 1965; Uy v. Republic, L­20208,
June 30, 1965; Yao Long v. Republic, L-20910,
Nov. 27, 1965; Republic v. Reyes, L-20602, Dec. 24, 1965; Pe v. Republic, L-20375, Jan. 31, 1966; Yu An Kiong v. Republic, L-21333, Jan. 31, 1966; Chan Kiat Huat v. Republic,
L-19579, Feb. 28, 1966; Leoncio Dy
v. Republic, L-20152, Feb. 28, 1966; Kao Heng v.
Republic, L-21079, Feb. 28, 1966; Tan Huy Liong v. Republic, L-21671, Feb. 28, 1966; Wayne
Chang v. Republic, L-20713, April 29, 1966; Lim Tan v. Republic,
L-22192, April 30, 1966; Tan v. Republic, L-22207, May 30, 1966.

3 “ART. 749.  In order the the
donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public
document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the
charges which the donee must satisfy.

4 Ng v. Republic, L-26242,
Oct. 25, 1968; Cu King Nan v. Republic, L-20490, June 29, 1968; Choa Ek Yong v. Republic,
L-21738, March 1, 1968; Sia Faw
v. Republic, L-24782, Nov. 17, 1967; Tan vs. Republic,
L-22077, Feb. 18, 1967; Uy Tian
Hua v. Republic, L-20813, Nov. 29, 1966; Lim v.
Republic, L-21193, Sept. 30, 1966; Sia v.
Republic, L-20290, Aug. 31, 1965; Lee v. Republic, L-20148, April 30,
1965.

5 Tan v. Republic, L-16013,
March 30, 1963; Ng v. Republic, L-21179, Jan. 22, 1966; Chua Lian Yan v. Republic,
L-26416, April 25, 1969; Oh Hek How v.
Republic, L-27429„ Aug. 27, 1969.

6 Lim Siong
v. Republic, L-26601, June 30, 1969; Lim v. Republic, L-21193,
Sept. 30, 1966; Yong Sai v. Republic, L-20483,
Sept. 30, 1966; Lim v. Republic, L-20149, Sept. 29, 1966; Ong So v. Republic, L-20145, June 30, 1965.