G.R. No. 14802. May 30, 1961
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. TAN TIAM ALIAS J. CHUA KE SENG, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR A…
DE LEON, J.:
was issued on October 22, 1956 declaring herein petitioner a naturalized citizen
of the Philippines and directing him, upon the expiration of two years from
notice of the order, to appear before the court and prove that he has complied
with all the requirements of the law with respect to his conduct and behaviour
during that period, and upon satisfactory proof of such compliance, to be
allowed to take and sign in open court the oath of citizenship prescribed by
law.
On October 7, 1958, petitioner filed a petition to set a date for his
oath-taking, pursuant to Republic Act 530, reciting that the two-year
probationary period would expire on October 21, 1958, and on this latter date
the petitioner adduced in court evidence to show that he has complied with the
provisions of Republic Act 530 which prescribes the requisites before an alien
whose petition for naturalization has been granted could be allowed to take his
oath of allegiance to the Government and issued his certificate of
naturalization as a Filipino citizen.
Cross-examined by a representative of the Solicitor-General upon a document
denominated “Contract No. 225” (Exhibit 1-Oath Taking), petitioner admitted that
on February 5, 1957, while still a Chinese citizen, he entered into an agreement
to sell with the Sta. Mesa Realty, Inc., involving a parcel of land with an area
of 248.6 square meters of the Lourdes Subdivision, Sampaloc, Manila, for the
total sum of P8,701.00 payable in monthly installments of P103.83 effective
March, 1957, and that as of October 2, 1957 he has paid the total sum of
P2,920.77. Petitioner further admitted that he had consented to the placing of
his citizenship as “Filipino” because the agent who induced him to buy the
property allegedly told him that the document was only a private document and
before the 10-year period stipulated therein for payment could lapse, petitioner
would have become a naturalized Filipino.
In an order, dated October 27, 1958, the court a quo declared that
petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 1 of Republic Act
530, and so denied his petition to take the oath of allegiance. The case is now
before this Court for review of that order.
The primordial question is whether or not the execution by petitioner of the
agreement to sell and his consenting to the placing of his nationality as
“Filipino” thereon are acts “prejudicial to the interest of the nation or
contrary to any Government announced policies,” pursuant to Section 1 of
Republic Act 530.
The inhibition against acquisition by aliens of private agricultural lands in
the Philippines embodied in the Constitution is undoubtedly a
government-announced policy. Petitioner’s actuations surrounding the execution
of that document are contrary to such a policy and have cast doubt upon his
sincerity. He has arrogated unto himself a prized attribute of citizenship which
he has not yet possessed.
Upon the execution of the document and payment of the first installment on
the purchase price, petitioner as “purchaser” has acquired a right over real
property which he can immediately enforce. He can take immediate possession of
the land by constructing his house thereon or leasing it to third persons. After
ten years, if he fully pays the purchase price, petitioner can, also pursuant to
the contract to sell, force his vendor to execute an absolute deed of sale and
to register the same In the proper Registry. While it may be true that ownership
is transferred to petitioner only after ten years, during which time he expects
to have already the status of a naturalized Filipino with all the privileges
implicit in said citizenship, he has nevertheless no right to presume that he
would be admitted to Philippine citizenship upon the expiration of the two-year
intervening time prescribed by law. Republic Act 530 postpones for two years the
execution of a decision granting an application for Philippine citizenship only
if he proves to the satisfaction of the court the facts required in said law.
Strict compliance with the conditions is essential (Dee Sam vs. Republic
of the Philippines, 53 Off. Gaz., 144). Relaxation of these requirements to meet
one’s eagerness might lead to abuse and confusion and would sanction
falsehood.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, and Natividad, JJ., concur.