IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES.  CHUA TIONG SENG ALIAS RICARDO SIMTOCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPP…

Chua Tiong Seng versus Republic of the Philippines

The Case

This is an appeal by the Republic of the Philippines from an order of the Court of First Instance of Samar allowing Chua Tiong Seng, also known as Ricardo Simtoco, to take his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines. The State attacks the order on three fronts: that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction because the petition omitted other aliases; that the applicant lacked the qualifications and the additional requirements of Section 1 of Republic Act 530; and that the oath was taken prematurely, before the thirty-day appeal period had run. The case matters because it shows how strictly the Court polices the disclosure of aliases and the requirement of a lucrative occupation, and because it confirms that a naturalization certificate can be cancelled after the oath has already been taken.

Procedural History

On December 24, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Samar, in a naturalization proceeding, rendered a decision granting the petition for naturalization. No appeal was taken from that decision. More than two years later, on January 7, 1963, the applicant invoked Section 1 of Republic Act 530 and filed a petition to be allowed to take his oath of allegiance. After due hearing, with the Provincial Fiscal of Samar present in representation of the Solicitor General, the court on March 14, 1963 issued the order allowing the oath-taking. The applicant took the oath the same day, and the certificate of naturalization was issued the following day. The Republic appealed from that order to the Supreme Court.

Facts

The applicant's petition for naturalization stated his name and alias as Chua Tiong Seng, alias Ricardo Simtoco, and these were the names set forth in the notice of hearing published in accordance with law. The record, however, indubitably disclosed that aside from these two names he had extensively used other names: Casing Sim and Casing C. Simtoco.

On the financial side, the evidence showed that at the time of the rendition of the decision granting naturalization, the applicant was an employee of Lu Tay Company with a yearly salary of 3,000 pesos, which constituted his only income. At the time of the final hearing, he testified that he had ceased working for Lu Tay Company since August 1961; that since then he had been employed as clerk with the Ramon Lao Hoo Estate at a monthly salary of 200 pesos, excluding bonus; and that for the year 1962 he had received 1,400 pesos as bonus.

The trial court allowed the oath-taking on March 14, 1963, the applicant took the oath that same day, and the certificate issued the next day. The Republic then brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the proceeding despite the applicant's failure to mention in his petition his other aliases or the other names by which he was known.
• Whether or not the applicant possessed all the qualifications required by law and proved compliance with the additional requirements of Section 1 of Republic Act 530.
• Whether or not the oath-taking was premature because it took place before the expiration of thirty days from notice to the Republic of the order allowing it.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Republic Act 530, the law invoked by the applicant when he asked to be allowed to take his oath, governs the case:

Section 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 29 of the Revised Naturalization Law, the competent court may, upon motion of a person who has been declared eligible for Philippine citizenship, allow said person to take his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen, if he has complied with the requirements of the law and has not been disqualified under the provisions thereof.

This provision is the gateway through which the applicant sought to convert his earlier naturalization decision into citizenship, and it is why the Court examined whether he had complied with the law and remained qualified.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the omission was a fatal defect. Applicants for naturalization are required to give their names and all aliases that they had used prior to the date of filing of the application, in order to give the State and other parties ample or reasonable opportunity to make the necessary investigations regarding the applicant's qualifications and possible disqualifications. Because the applicant had extensively used Casing Sim and Casing C. Simtoco without disclosing them, the purpose of the law was frustrated in those places and regions where he was known under a name or alias not set forth in the published notice of hearing.

On the second issue, the Court held that the applicant did not possess the required qualification of a lucrative occupation. It noted its previous decisions holding that a monthly income of 200 pesos is not sufficient to justify the conclusion that an applicant for naturalization has a lucrative occupation, especially where, as here, the applicant has a wife and several children to support. The alleged bonus, which he claimed he could earn every year, is clearly contingent and speculative in nature and cannot be considered as part of his yearly fixed income.

Having reached these conclusions, the Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the other issues raised, including the claim that the oath-taking was premature.

Doctrine

First, an applicant for naturalization must state in his petition all the names and aliases he has used prior to filing, so that the State and other parties may investigate his qualifications and disqualifications; the omission of an alias used extensively is a fatal defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction and frustrates the purpose of the published notice.

Second, under Section 1 of Republic Act 530, the court may allow the oath only if the applicant has complied with the requirements of the law and has not been disqualified; a monthly income of 200 pesos is not a lucrative occupation, particularly for an applicant supporting a wife and several children, and a contingent, speculative bonus cannot be counted as part of fixed yearly income.

Disposition

The Court reversed and set aside the appealed order, cancelled the oath of allegiance taken by the applicant and the certificate of naturalization issued to him on March 15, 1963, and imposed costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the omission of an alias used extensively is a fatal defect that deprives the court of jurisdiction, and a monthly income of 200 pesos is not a lucrative occupation. Examiners use this case to test the disclosure requirement in naturalization petitions and the standard for a lucrative occupation under Republic Act 530.