June 1954 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1954 > June 1954 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-5799 June 30, 1954 - IN RE: TAM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
095 Phil 326:
095 Phil 326:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-5799. June 30, 1954.]
In the matter of the petition of TAM TAN to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. TAM TAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Afredo Ramos for Appellee.
Assistant Solicitor General Francisco Carreon and Solicitor Meliton G. Soliman for Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CITIZENSHIP; FILING OF PETITION ONE YEAR FROM AND AFTER FILING OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION IS MANDATORY. — The requirement that the petition for naturalization may be filed and heard and hence no decree may be issued granting it under the provisions of Co. Act No. 473, as amended, before the expiration of one year from and after the date of the filing of a verified declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines is mandatory.
2. ID.; APPEAL AND ERROR; GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO RAISE QUESTION IN LOWER COURT. — Failure to raise in the lower court the question of non-compliance with the law does not preclude the Government from raising it on appeal.
3. ID.; FILING OF PETITION BEFORE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR FROM FILING DECLARATION; REMEDY OF PETITIONER; PROCEDURE THEREOF. — Where the petitioner filed his petition before the expiration of one year from and after the filing of his declaration of bona fide intention contrary to the provisions of the naturalization law, and his petition was denied, the applicant may renew his petition for naturalization after one-year period. The evidence already taken or heard may be offered anew without the necessity of bringing to court the witnesses who had testified. And the government may introduce evidence in support of its opposition.
2. ID.; APPEAL AND ERROR; GOVERNMENT’S FAILURE TO RAISE QUESTION IN LOWER COURT. — Failure to raise in the lower court the question of non-compliance with the law does not preclude the Government from raising it on appeal.
3. ID.; FILING OF PETITION BEFORE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR FROM FILING DECLARATION; REMEDY OF PETITIONER; PROCEDURE THEREOF. — Where the petitioner filed his petition before the expiration of one year from and after the filing of his declaration of bona fide intention contrary to the provisions of the naturalization law, and his petition was denied, the applicant may renew his petition for naturalization after one-year period. The evidence already taken or heard may be offered anew without the necessity of bringing to court the witnesses who had testified. And the government may introduce evidence in support of its opposition.
D E C I S I O N
PADILLA, J.:
A petition for naturalization filed by Tam Tan was granted after notice by publication and hearing, because the Court found that the applicant possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended by Com. Act No. 535 and Republic Act No. 530. From this decree the Government appeals.
The appeal is predicated on the fact that the petition for naturalization was filed (26 October 1950) before the lapse of one year from and after the filing of a verified declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen (4 April 1950), in violation of section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
The position of the Government is well taken, because no petition for naturalization may be filed and heard and hence no decree may be issued granting it under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, before the expiration of one year from and after the date of the filing of a verified declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. This is mandatory. 1 Failure to raise in the lower court the question of non-compliance therewith does not preclude the Government from raising it on appeal. 2
Nevertheless, after the one-year period, the applicant may renew his petition from naturalization and the evidence already taken or heard may be offered anew without the necessity of bringing the court the witnesses who had testified. And the Government may introduce evidence in support of its position. 3
The decree granting the petition for naturalization is set aside, without costs.
Paras, C.J. Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
The appeal is predicated on the fact that the petition for naturalization was filed (26 October 1950) before the lapse of one year from and after the filing of a verified declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen (4 April 1950), in violation of section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
The position of the Government is well taken, because no petition for naturalization may be filed and heard and hence no decree may be issued granting it under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended, before the expiration of one year from and after the date of the filing of a verified declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. This is mandatory. 1 Failure to raise in the lower court the question of non-compliance therewith does not preclude the Government from raising it on appeal. 2
Nevertheless, after the one-year period, the applicant may renew his petition from naturalization and the evidence already taken or heard may be offered anew without the necessity of bringing the court the witnesses who had testified. And the Government may introduce evidence in support of its position. 3
The decree granting the petition for naturalization is set aside, without costs.
Paras, C.J. Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
(1). Uy Yap v. Republic, G. R. No. L-4270, 8 May 1952; Yu v. Republic, G. R. No. L-3808, 29 July 1952; Chua v. Republic, G. R. No. L-4112, 28 August 1952.
(2). Cruz v. Republic, 49 Off. Gaz., 958.
(3). Uy Yap v. Republic, supra.
