G.R. No. L-14866. October 28, 1960
[With resolution of December 29, 1960]
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
First Instance of Laguna granting the petition of Andres Ong Khan to be admitted
a citizen of the Philippines.
On December 18, 1957, Andres Ong Khan applied for Philippine citizenship.
After the publication of his petition and the notice of hearing as required by
section 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as
amended), the provincial fiscal of Laguna, representing the Solicitor General,
registered an opposition on the ground that there was no showing in the petition
that the petitioner has complied with section 5 of the Act, nor was there any
allegation to the effect that he was exempt from such requirement. In reply, the
petitioner reasoned out that he should be considered exempt from making a
declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines and has received
his elementary and secondary education in schools recognized by the Philippine
Government. Upon his request and with prior leave of court, the petitioner filed
an amended petition, incorporating the allegation that he is exempt from filing
a declaration of intention, including the reason’s for such exemption.
When the case was called for hearing, the fiscal objected to the presentation
of evidence in support of the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on
the part of the court to try the case, unless and until the petition, as
amended, is published anew in accordance with the requirements of the law. It
was argued, however, in behalf of the petitioner, that a republication was not
necessary since the amendment refers merely to form and not to substance.
Upholding the contention, the lower court allowed the petitioner to present his
evidence, and after hearing, rendered judgment granting the petition for
naturalization. From that decision, the Solicitor General appealed.
The appeal is well taken.
Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473, as
amended) enumerates what should be set forth in a petition for naturalization.
Among others, it requires that the petition must contain a statement that the
applicant has complied with the requirements of section 5 of the Act which
enjoins the said applicant to file with the office of the Solicitor General, one
year prior to the filing of his petition for naturalization, a declaration under
oath that it is his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines. It also requires that the declaration be made part of the petition.
The filing of such declaration of intention is mandatory and an absolute
pre-requisite to naturalization. Failure to file the same, unless exempted under
section 6, is fatal to the application for naturalization. (Yu Yap vs.
Republic, G. R. No. L-4270, May 8, 1952; Yu vs. Republic, 92 Phil.,
804; and Tan vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 882.) Under the said section 6, in
order that an applicant may be entitled to exemption from filing a declaration
of intention, either of the following two conditions must exist: (1) that the
applicant was born in the Philippines and has received his primary and secondary
education in public schools or those recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality; or (2) that he has resided continuously in
the Philippines for a period of thirty years or more before filing his
application. To such requirements shall be added that which establishes that the
applicant has given primary and secondary education to all his children in the
public schools or in private schools recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality (See Commonwealth Act No. 535); that
is, if the applicant’s children, if any, are already of school age (Chan Tiao
vs. Republic, 95 Phil., 709).
In the present case, the petitioner made no allegation in his original
petition that he has complied with section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law.
No declaration of intention was attached, to his petition. He did not claim
exemption from filing such declaration of intention under section 6 of the said
law, and neither did he make any allegation of facts that would entitle him to
exemption. Thus, being less than 25 years at the time of the filing of his
petition, he never claimed continuous residence in the Philippines for 30 years
or more. He did allege that he was born here but, certainly, that statement
alone cannot serve as a claim for exemption. It would have been otherwise had
petitioner also alleged, in addition, that he had finished his elementary and
secondary education in schools recognized by the Government. In cases where the
petitioner is exempt from filing a declaration of intention, a statement as to
his exemption and the reasons therefor should appear in the petition, in order
to apprise the public, especially those officers charged with notice of the
application, of the reasons advanced in support of the claim for exemption, so
that they may be prepared, if legally proper and necessary, to contest or object
to any evidence adduced on that regard. The failure, therefore, of the
petitioner in this case to make a statement in his petition about His having
filed, or his being exempt from filing, a declaration of intention constituted a
fatal defect “in his petition and rendered the same void, for non-compliance
with the provisions of law relative to the contents of, and annexes to, fhe
petition for naturalization. (In re Robert Cu, 89 Phil., 473; Pidelo
vs. Republic, 97 Phil., 632.)
Of course, as already stated, petitioner amended his petition by
incorporating the allegation that he is exempt from filing a declaration of
intention and alleging hi3 reasons therefore. The petition, as amended, however,
was not published. The original petition being void in that it lacked some
essential particular, the amended petition should have been treated as a new one
and published in accordance with sectkm 9 of the Revised Naturalization Law.
In view of the foregoing, the petition for naturalization is hereby denied,
without prejudice. So ordered, without costs. ‘
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B.
L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed.
R E S O L U T I O N
December 29, 1960
GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:
Petitioner Andres Ong Khan has filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision promulgated on October 28, 1960, denying his application for
naturalization, without prejudice, for the reasons that he did not comply with
the provisions of law relative to the contents of a petition for naturalization
and that while he subsequently amended his petition to supply the deficiency,
the same was not published.
Before action could be taken on the aforesaid motion, petitioner filed
another motion praying that the case be returned to the trial court and that he
be permitted to comply at once with the required publication of his amended
petition without the necessity of filing a new application.
Considering the arguments advanced in support of the motion for
reconsideration, we find and so hold that the same are without merit. Said
motion must, therefore, be as it is hereby, denied.
We are, however inclined to grant petitioner’s other motion to remand the
case to the trial court in order to avoid the necessity of filing a new
application and the repetition of proceedings already had. This is with the
understanding, of course, that the parties, especially the Government, shall be
given additional or new opportunity to establish or disprove the existence of
circumstances as would justify the grant of naturalization. For this purpose the
dispositive portion of our decision is hereby amended to read as follows:
“In view of the foregoing, the case is ordered remanded to the court of
origin and that court, after due publication of the amended petition as required
by law, is hereby instructed to give the parties additional or new opportunity
to be heard.” So ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Paredes and
Dizon, JJ., concur.
Dispositive portion of Supreme Courts’ decision amended; case remanded to
court of origin.