G.R. No. L-27126. May 29, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF LOU C. LIM (LIM CHAT) TO BE ADMITTED AS A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS LOU C. LIM (LIM CHAT), PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL…
FERNANDO, J.:
This is
an appeal from an order of the lower court denying a motion of the then
Solicitor General, now Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, for the cancellation of the
naturalization proceedings had the order allowing the oath-taking of applicant
Lou C. Lim, the oath of allegiance subscribed to by him, the certificate of
naturalization issued in his favor as well as a later order declaring his wife
likewise a citizen, the motion[1] for cancellation being
premised on the rather unique circumstance of the petition for naturalization
filed on September 26, 1960 being based on the former Naturalization Act[2] when since June 17, 1939,
the present Naturalization Law[3] has already come into full
force and effect, with the expected consequence of such a petition showing on
its face that certain mandatory requirements were not satisfied at all, the
Solicitor General’s office moreover having been notified only of the first
hearing, thereafter to be completely ignored.
The case as above set forth would thus seem to call for an affirmative
response from us. We reverse the lower
court.
To
repeat, the petition was accomplished on the form prescribed under a law no
longer in force. It thus failed to
allege petitioner’s good moral character, as well as his belief in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, both requisites not being
found in the former act. Nor was there
any allegation as to the education in local prescribed schools of petitioner’s
two elder children, namely: Helen and Ben, both surnamed Lou C. Lim, born on
December 16, 1938 and June 12, 1936, notwithstanding their being of school age
during the entire period of petitioner’s residence in the country. A defect, grave and fundamental in character,
was petitioner’s failure to file a declaration of intention, a matter
sufficient to call for a denial of his application, again understandable but
certainly not excusable as there was no such requirement under the former law.
Hearings
were had before the lower court in the absence of any further notice to the
office of the Solicitor General, as was already made mention of. The patent defects of the petition,
notwithstanding, sufficient to indicate the lack of all the qualifications of
petitioner, the lower court, on September 18, 1961 rendered a decision in his
favor. Again, the Solicitor General was
not notified. Neither was he informed of
the subsequent petition, filed on September 21, 1963, of appellant’s proposed
oath-taking.
On
September 26, 1963, the lower court, “satisfied that the petitioner has
complied with the requisites provided for in Section 1 of Republic Act
530,” allowed him “to take his oath on any date from
today.” On the same day, he was
allowed to do so, a certificate of naturalization being issued to him. Again, the Solicitor General was not
notified. Then, on June 6, 1966, came an
order declaring applicant’s wife Tan Hiu Wan as a citizen of the Philippines,
the pattern of ignoring the Solicitor General being adhered to, no copies of
the petition and notices of hearing relative to said order being furnished
him. Consequently, on August 25, 1966,
the Republic filed with the lower court a motion for cancellation of
proceedings. This was followed by an
opposition on the part of applicant and the denial of the lower court in an order
of November 14, 1966. It is from this
order that the present appeal is taken.
As set forth at the opening of this opinion, we find the appeal
meritorious.
1, In raising the objection that there was a grave error committed
by the lower court in taking cognizance of the present naturalization
proceedings, it is the contention of the Solicitor General that the petition is
void on its face. This objection is
well-grounded. It is an express
requirement of the present naturalization law that the petition must declare
that the applicant has “the qualifications required by [it]; specifying
the same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under [its]
provisions * * *.”[4] Petitioner Lou C. Lim explicitly alleged that
he was possessed of “the
qualifications required by Act No. 2927 to become a citizen of the Philippine
Islands.”[5] He likewise expressly stated that he was
“not disqualified for naturalization under Act No. 2927.”[6] Even if the rather patent mistake of
referring to this country as the Philippine Islands, when as far back as
November 15, 1935 the appropriate name was first that of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines and thereafter, on July 4, 1946, the Republic of the
Philippines, be ignored, it is obvious that such a petition failed to satisfy
the requirements of the present law.
Insofar as qualifications are concerned, the present law requires a
ten-year period of residence, not the former five-year period.[7] Likewise, there is the added requisite
that the applicant must show that he possesses good moral character and that he
believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution. There was no Philippine Constitution as of
the time Act No. 2927 took effect.[8]
An even more fatal omission was the failure of such a petition to
show that he was possessed of one of the additional qualifications imposed by
the present Naturalization Act. Thus:
“He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the
public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private
Education, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his
petition for naturalization as Philippine citizen.[9] It must be noted likewise that relying as he
did on the former act, it was more than possible that he was not aware that
another ground for
disqualification was the failure of an applicant to have mingled socially with
the Filipinos or to have evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs, traditions and ideals of our people.[10]
There is
no resisting the conclusion, then, that on its face, the petition was fatally
defective. It could not have been the basis of a favorable decree of
naturalization. From Orestoff v.
Government of the Philippines,[11] it has been our constant
holding that for an applicant to be considered truly deserving of the privilege
of Philippine citizenship, he must show strict compliance, with all the requirements
of the Naturalization Act.[12] It goes without saying that the requisites to
be satisfied must be those of the present law, not those of a former enactment,
which as far back as 1939 had ceased to have any force and effect. .
2. Again no doubt misled by the inexplicable reliance on the
former naturalization law, Act No. 2927, petitioner ignored the fundamental
requirement that a declaration of intention had to be filed by him.[13] Such a requirement is mandatory. It is jurisdictional in character. An indispensable prerequisite to
naturalization, it cannot be waived.
Failure to file the same is thus fatal to the application. It is, to put it differently, a condition
sine qua non to the consideration of the petition for naturalization.[14]
Nor may
such a failure be condoned because petitioner was included among the persons
exempt from such a requirement.[15] It is true that at the time of hiss
application, he had resided in the Philippines for a period of more than thirty
(30) years but it was not continuous as he did admit on the witness stand that
he had gone back to China on at least two occasions.[16] Our ruling in Law Tai v. Republic[17] ought to have admonished
him that he did not fall within the language of the law. Thus: “Petitioner did not file a
declaration of intention as required by the Naturalization Law: He claims
exemption thereof. The Solicitor General
challenges this position, draws attention to jurisprudential doctrine that
residence, as here understood, contemplates ‘actual and substantial,’ not legal
residence alone. Reason for this is that
‘only by actual and substantial residence may the said qualification be
acquired by an applicant.'”
An even
more insurmountable obstacle to any claim for exemption from the filing of the
declaration of intention was the fact manifest on the face of the petition that
failed to comply with the mandatory requirement that all his children be
educated in the public schools or private schools recognized by the Government
and not limited to any race or nationality.[18] He mentioned six children[19] but he alleged only four of
them as having been enrolled in a school duly recognized by the government,
where Philippine history, government and civics are taught.[20] As stated earlier, there was no allegation as
to the compliance with such requisite concerning the two elder children, Helen
and Ben.
3. Another infirmity that vitiated the validity of the proceedings
here had was the failure, other than the initial notice of hearing issued on
October 3, 1960 by the clerk of court setting the initial hearing on July 27,
1961 which, incidentally was postponed to later dates, to notify the Solicitor
General. So the law requires. Instead, he was thereafter kept in the
dark. Only much later did he come to
know, and not through the formal notices required, that there was a decision
favorable to petitioner, who thereafter took the oath of citizenship. Moreover, there was likewise a lower court
order conferring such a boon on his wife.
Again, the Solicitor General was ignored. Since it is a matter of jurisdictional
requirement that notices a hearings and other proceedings be given to the
Solicitor General, the fact that such notices were given to the Provincial
Fiscal, even if the latter was duly authorized by the Solicitor General to
appear in his behalf, not being a sufficient compliance with the statutory
requirement, it was indeed error on the part of the lower court not to grant
his motion for the nullity of the proceedings had.[21] Necessarily, the cancellation of the
certificates of citizenship in favor of petitioner and his wife thus shown to
be totally bereft of any justification in law was inescapable. The lower court order now challenged cannot
stand.
WHEREFORE, the order of the lower
court of November 14, 1966 denying the motion of the Solicitor General for the
cancellation of the proceedings had in this petition for naturalization is
reversed and set aside, and judgment is entered declaring void its decision
dated September 18, 1961 granting the petition for naturalization, its order
dated September 26, 1963 allowing petitioner’s oath-taking, as well as the oath
of allegiance subscribed to by him, and its order dated June 6, 1966 declaring
Tan Hiu, Wan, the wife of petitioner, as citizen of the Philippines. The certificate of naturalization issued to
petitioner and the certificate of naturalization issued to her, if any, are
hereby cancelled and must be surrendered to the Clerk of Court of the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan. It is
further ordered that the corresponding alien certificates of registration of
petitioner Lou C. Lim, his wife Tan Hiu Wan, and their children with the Bureau
of Immigration on the basis of the naturalization papers wrongfully acquired,
be validated anew. Costs against
petitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., did not take part.
Ruiz Castro, J., on leave.
[1]
Brief for Appellant, pp.1-2.
[2]
Act No. 2927 (1920).
[3]
Commonwealth Act No. 473.
[4]
Section 7 of the present Naturalization Act reads as follows: “Any person
desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court,
a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner,
setting forth his name and surname; his present and former places of residence;
his occupation; the place and date of his birth, whether single or married and
if the father of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife
and of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her arrival in the
Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the
name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications
required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for
naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has complied with the
requirements of section five, of this Act; and that he will reside continuously
in the Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time
of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the
applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the affidavit of at least
two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and
personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the
period of time required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally
irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualification’s
necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified
under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the-names
and post office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner may desire to
introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificates of arrival, and the
declaration of intention must be made part of the petition.”
[5]
People, par. 8, Record on Appeal, p. 3.
[6] Ibid,
par. 9, p. 4.
[7]
Commonwealth Act No. 473, Sec. 2, par. 1.
[8] Ibid,
Sec. 2, par. 3.
[9] Ibid,
Sec. 2, par. 6.
[10]
Sec. 4, par. (f) of the present law reads as follows: “Persons who, during
the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled socially
with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;”.
[11]
71 Phil. 240 (1941).
[12]
A by no means complete list of cases to which reference may be made follows:
Bautista v. Republic, 87 Phil. 818 (1950); Ang Yee v. Republic,
90 Phil. 594 (1951); Ong v. Republic, 103 Phil. 964 (1958); Co y Quing
Reyes v. Republic, 104 Phil. 889 (1958); Lee Cho v. Republic, 106
Phil. 755 (1959); Deetuanka v. Republic, 106 Phil. 916 (1960); Tan Chu
Keng v. Republic, L-13139, May 24, 1961, 2 SCRA 74; Tan Tiam v. Republic,
L-14802, May 30, 1961, 2 SCRA 192; Pe v. Republic, L-16980, Nov. 29,
1961, 3 SCRA 573; Ng v. Republic, L-16302, Feb. 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 563; Mo
Yuen Tsi v. Republic, L-17137, June 29, 1962, 5 SCRA 407; Cu v. Republic,
L-13341, July 21, 1962, 5 SCRA 613; Hao Su Siang v. Republic, L-13045,
July 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 628; Tan Ten Koc v. Republic, L.-18344, Feb. 28,
1964, 10 SCRA 286; Qua v. Republic, L-19834, Oct. 27, 1964, 12 SCRA 186;
Cheng v. Republic, L-20013, March 30, 1965, 13 SCRA 437; Lee Ng Len v.
Republic, L-20151, March 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 532; Go v. Republic,
L-20558, Mar. 31, 1965, 13 SCRA 548; Lee v. Republic, L-20148, April 30, 1965,
13 SCRA 700; Ly Hong v. Republic, L-16999, June 22, 1965, 14 SCRA 320; Bun Tho
Khu v. Republic L-21828, Jan. 22, 1966, 16 SCRA 29; Apacible v. Republic,
L-16987, June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA. 411; Go Tian An v. Republic, L-19833, Aug. 31,
1966, 17 SCRA 1053; Yap v. Republic, L-23385, Feb. 27, 1968, 22 SCRA
844; Republic v. Santos, L-23919, July 29, 1968, 24 SCRA 314; Fong Choy v.
Republic, L-24687, Sept. 21, 1968, 25 SCRA 24; Yu Chuan v. Republic,
L-26706, June 1969, 28 SCRA 739.
[13]
Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 provides: “Declaration of
intention. One year prior to the filing
of his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the applicant for
Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of Justice a declaration
under oath that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the
Philippines. Such declaration shall set forth the name, age, occupation,
personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance,
the date of arrival, the name of the vessel or aircraft, if any, in which he
came to the Philippines,
and the place of residence in the Philippines
at the time of making the declaration. No declaration shall be valid until
lawful entry for permanent residence has been established and a certificate
showing the date, place and manner of his arrival has been issued. The declarant must also state that he has
enrolled his minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private schools
recognized by the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where
Philippine history, government and civics are taught or prescribed as part of
the school-curriculum, during the entire period of the residence in the
Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish two
photographs of himself.”
[14]
Yu v. Republic, 92 Phil. 804 (1953) Tan v. Republic, 94 Phil. 882
(1954); Chin Hai. Republic, 106 Phil. 210 (1959), Sy Ang Hoc Republic, L-12400,
March 29, 1961 886; Tan Chu Keng v. Republic May 24, 1961, 2 SCRA 74,
Yap v: Republic, L-12938, July 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 854 Tan Ten Koc v. Republic,
L-18344, Feb. 28, 144,-10 SCRA 256; Tan v. Republic, L-19897, 24, 1965,
14 SCRA 448; Ting Tong v. L-21138, Nov. 27,1965,15 SCRA 271;
Republic v. Reyes, L-20602, Dec; 24, 1965, 15 SCRA 538; Sio, Kim V. Republic,
L-20415, Dec. 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 635; , Lim v. Republic, L-20804, Jan.
22, 1966, 16 SCRA 12; Lim Cho Kuan v. Republic, L-21198, Jan. 22, 1966,
16 SCRA 25; Chin Hong v. Republic, L-21219, May 20, 1966, 17 SCRA 220;
Apacible v. Republic, L-16987, June 21, 1966, 17 SCRA 411; Law Tai v.
Republic, L-20623, April 27, 1967, 19 SCRA 852; Sia Faw v. Republic,
L-24782, Nov. 17, 1967, 21 SCRA 893; Ng v. Republic, L-26242,
Oct. 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 574; Te Poot v. Republic, L-20017, March 28,
1969, 27 SCRA. 644.
[15]
Sec. 6. of the Naturalization Law provides: “Persons born in the
Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public
schools or those recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality, and those who have resided continuously in the Philippines for a
period of thirty years or more before filing their application, may be
naturalized with- out having to make a declaration of intention upon complying
with the other requirements of this Act. 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. The
same shall be understood applicable with respect to the widow and minor
children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the Philippines
and dies before he is actually naturalized.”
[16] Hearing of August 8, 1961, t. s.n., p.10.
[17]
L-20623, Apri1 27 1967, 19 SCRA 852 citing Dy Republic, 92 Phil. 278 (1952); Sy
See v. Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 189; Tan v. Republic,
L-16013, March 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 526; Guy Co Chia v. Republic, L-17917,
April 30, 1964, 10 SCRA 745; See Yek Tek v. Republic, L-19898, June 28,
1965, 14 SCRA 457; Yao Long v. Republic, L-20910, Nov. 27, 19, 15
SCRA 266, Also: Pidelo v. Republic, 97 Phil. 632 (1955); Pessumal
Bhrojraj v. Republic, L-24023, May 8, 1969, 28 SCRA 21.
[18]
Cf. Hao Lian Chu v. Republic, 87 Phil. 668, (950); Tan Hi v. Republic,
88 Phil. 117 (1951); Chan Su Hok v. Republic, 90 Phil. 415 (1951); Ang
Yee Koe Sengkee v. Republic, 90 594 (1951); Sy Kiap v. Republic,
91 Phil. 784 (1952); Chua Pieng v. Republic, 92 Phil. 155 (1952); Bangon
.Du v. Republic, 92 Phil. 519 (1953); Geronimo Yu v. Republic, 92
Phil. 804 (1953); Tan Kay Ko v. Republic, 92 Phil. 915 (1953); Anglo v.
Republic, 92 Phil. 1006 (1953); Yay Chin v. Republic, 93 Phil. 215
(1953); Co Cal v. Republic, 94 Phil. 98 (1953); Chum v. Republic,
94 Phil. 700 (1954); Quing v. Republic, 94 Phil. 736 (1954); Dy Chan.
Tiao v. Republic, 95 Phil. 709 (1954); Sy Chut v. Republic, 102
Phil. 839 (1958); Ku E v. Republic, 103 Phil. 1161 (1958); Yu Soon Seng v.
Republic, 105 Phil. 558 (1959); Lim Siong v. Republic, 105 Phil. 668
(1959); Chan. Lai v. Republic, 106 Phil. 210 (1959); Lo Kio v. Republic,
106 Phil. 224 (1959); Lee Cho v. Republic, 106 Phil. 755 (1959); Tan v.
Republic, 107 Phil. 632 (1960); Ong Ching v. Republic, L-15691 March
27, 1961, 1 SCRA 833; Republic v. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961, 1
SCRA 1166; Si Ne v. Republic, L-16828, May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 170; Hao Su
Siong v. Republic, L-13045, July 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 628; Lu Beng v. Republic,
L-18005, Nov. 29, 1963, 9 SCRA 567; Yap Chun v. Republic,
L-18516, Ian. 30, 1964, 10 SCRA 30; Yu Ti v. Republic, L-19913, June 23,
1965, 14 SCRA 382; Ong So v. Republic, L-20145, June 30, 1965, 14 SCRA
591; Go Bun Lee v. Republic, L-21981, May 19, 1966, 17 SCRA 181 Ang Pue v.
Republic, L-16459, July 26, 1966, 17 SCRA 672; Ng v. Republic,
L-26242, Oct. 25, 1968, 25 SCRA 574; Lim Chuy Tian v. Republic, L-26602,
April 25, 1969, 27 SCRA 1019; Chua. Lian Yan v. Republic,
L-26416, April
25, 1969, 27 SCRA 1024; Lim Siong v. Republic,
L-26601, June
30, 1969, 28 SCRA 687; Republic v. Uy
Piek Thy, L-27580, Aug. 27, 1969, 29 SCRA 75.
[19]
Petition, par. 5, Record on Appeal, p. 2.
[20] Ibid,
par. 6, Record on Appeal, p. 3.
[21]
Cf. Republic v. Chin, L-20846, Oct. 31, 1964, 12 SCRA 352; Ong So v. Republic,
L-20145, June 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 591; Lu Luan Co v. Hon. Jarencio,
L-21521, Oct. 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 190; Qua @ Qua Kieng v. Republic,
L-214I8, Dec. 31, 1965, 15 SCRA. 698.