May 1966 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-21952. May 19, 1966.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. LIM CHIAO CUN, Petitioners-Appellees, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor B.P. Pardo for Oppositor-Appellant.
Alberto O. Villaraza for Petitioner-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. NATURALIZATION; NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS; STATE NOT PRECLUDED FROM OBJECTING TO PETITIONER’S QUALIFICATIONS DURING THE HEARING OF PETITION TO TAKE OATH. — A petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest. Thus, in case of appeal, the entire record of the case is opened for scrutiny, whether an objection has been submitted in the lower court or not. It may not only interpose an appeal from the decision granting the petition, but the State is not even precluded from objecting to petitioner’s qualification during the hearing of the latter’s petition to take oath. (Dalmacio Cheng alias Benito Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20013, March 30, 1965. citing cases.)
2. ID.; LEAVING THE PHILIPPINES DURING THE REQUIRED TEN-YEAR PERIOD OF RESIDENCE. — Prior to the filing of his application for naturalization, petitioner left the Philippines for Hongkong to get married. After his marriage he went again to Hongkong several times. This took place, apparently, within the ten year period required of him to reside in the Philippines. This is fatal to his application because the law requires that an applicant for naturalization should not leave the country during the said period of residence.
3. ID.; LACK OF DESIRE TO EMBRACE PHILIPPINE CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS; KEEPING; WIFE AND CHILDREN IN A NEIGHBORING COUNTRY. — Petitioner’s conduct of keeping his wife and children in a neighboring country and merely visiting them shows his lack of sincere desire to establish himself as a Filipino citizen and to embrace the customs and traditions of the Filipinos. (Sy See v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17025, May 30, 1962.)
2. ID.; LEAVING THE PHILIPPINES DURING THE REQUIRED TEN-YEAR PERIOD OF RESIDENCE. — Prior to the filing of his application for naturalization, petitioner left the Philippines for Hongkong to get married. After his marriage he went again to Hongkong several times. This took place, apparently, within the ten year period required of him to reside in the Philippines. This is fatal to his application because the law requires that an applicant for naturalization should not leave the country during the said period of residence.
3. ID.; LACK OF DESIRE TO EMBRACE PHILIPPINE CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS; KEEPING; WIFE AND CHILDREN IN A NEIGHBORING COUNTRY. — Petitioner’s conduct of keeping his wife and children in a neighboring country and merely visiting them shows his lack of sincere desire to establish himself as a Filipino citizen and to embrace the customs and traditions of the Filipinos. (Sy See v. Republic, G.R. No. L-17025, May 30, 1962.)
D E C I S I O N
REGALA, J.:
The government appeals from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila allowing the oath-taking of Lim Chiao Cun as a citizen of the Philippines.
Two years dated June 9, 1961, Lim Chiao Cun was granted Philippine citizenship by the lower court, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530 which states that any decision granting naturalization shall not become final and executory until after two years from its promulgation.
Two years thereafter, or on June 10, 1963, petitioner filed petition to take his oath. The government, however, opposed the petition and moved to set aside the decision granting naturalization on petitioner on several grounds, among which are that the petitioner is not a legal resident of the Philippines for a period of at least 10 years prior to the filing of the petition; that he did not evince a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs and traditions for he maintained his family in Hongkong under the care of his mother-in-law; and that his motive in applying for Philippine citizenship is only to secure a permanent admission of his wife and children into this country. The lower court, nevertheless, granted the petition for oath taking, holding that the grounds of the opposition would be proper only in the hearing of the main petition as they challenge the qualifications of the petitioner to become a citizen. The lower court further held that the only matters to be considered in the petition for oath-taking are those stated in Republic Act 530, namely: (1) that from the time of rendition of said decision up to the time of the petition for oath-taking, the period of two years had already elapsed; (2) that during said period the petitioner did not leave the Philippines for a foreign country; (3) that he dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; and (4) that during the same period, the petitioner has not been convicted of any offense or violation of the Government promulgated rules, regulations or laws, or he has committed any act prejudicial to the interest of this country or contrary to any government announced policies.
The first question we have to decide in this appeal is whether or not the grounds of the government’s opposition, which are not among those stated in Republic Act 530, are proper only in the original hearing of the petition for naturalization. This question has been settled in the case of Dalmacio Cheng @ Benito Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20013, March 30, 1965, where it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . that a petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest. Thus, in case of appeal, the entire record of the case is opened for scrutiny whether an objection has been submitted in the lower court or not (Kwan Kwock How v. Republic, L-18521, January 30, 1964). As a matter of fact, it may not only interpose an appeal from the decision granting the petition, but the State is not even precluded from objecting to petitioner’s qualification during the hearing of the latter’s petition to take oath (Republic v. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961; Ong Ching Guan v. Republic, L-15691, March 27, 1961; Lim Hok Albano v. Republic, L-10912, October 31, 1958)." (Emphasis supplied.)
Going now into the substance of the case, the record shows that in 1953, before the petitioner filed his application for naturalization, he left the Philippines for Hongkong to get married. After his marriage he went to Hongkong several times during which he sired three children. This took place, apparently, within the ten-year period required of him to reside in the Philippines. The law requires that any applicant for naturalization should not leave the country during the said period of residence. Besides, petitioner’s conduct of keeping his wife and children in a neighboring country and merely visiting them shows his lack of sincere desire to establish himself as a Filipino citizen and to embrace the customs and traditions of the Filipinos, (Sy See v. Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962)
The above circumstances being sufficient to disqualify the applicant from becoming a citizen of the Philippines, there is no necessity of passing upon the other issues raised.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed with costs against the Petitioner-Appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
Two years dated June 9, 1961, Lim Chiao Cun was granted Philippine citizenship by the lower court, subject to the provisions of Republic Act No. 530 which states that any decision granting naturalization shall not become final and executory until after two years from its promulgation.
Two years thereafter, or on June 10, 1963, petitioner filed petition to take his oath. The government, however, opposed the petition and moved to set aside the decision granting naturalization on petitioner on several grounds, among which are that the petitioner is not a legal resident of the Philippines for a period of at least 10 years prior to the filing of the petition; that he did not evince a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs and traditions for he maintained his family in Hongkong under the care of his mother-in-law; and that his motive in applying for Philippine citizenship is only to secure a permanent admission of his wife and children into this country. The lower court, nevertheless, granted the petition for oath taking, holding that the grounds of the opposition would be proper only in the hearing of the main petition as they challenge the qualifications of the petitioner to become a citizen. The lower court further held that the only matters to be considered in the petition for oath-taking are those stated in Republic Act 530, namely: (1) that from the time of rendition of said decision up to the time of the petition for oath-taking, the period of two years had already elapsed; (2) that during said period the petitioner did not leave the Philippines for a foreign country; (3) that he dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; and (4) that during the same period, the petitioner has not been convicted of any offense or violation of the Government promulgated rules, regulations or laws, or he has committed any act prejudicial to the interest of this country or contrary to any government announced policies.
The first question we have to decide in this appeal is whether or not the grounds of the government’s opposition, which are not among those stated in Republic Act 530, are proper only in the original hearing of the petition for naturalization. This question has been settled in the case of Dalmacio Cheng @ Benito Lim v. Republic, G.R. No. L-20013, March 30, 1965, where it was held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
". . . that a petition for naturalization is of a special nature necessarily involving public interest. Thus, in case of appeal, the entire record of the case is opened for scrutiny whether an objection has been submitted in the lower court or not (Kwan Kwock How v. Republic, L-18521, January 30, 1964). As a matter of fact, it may not only interpose an appeal from the decision granting the petition, but the State is not even precluded from objecting to petitioner’s qualification during the hearing of the latter’s petition to take oath (Republic v. Go Bon Lee, L-11499, April 29, 1961; Ong Ching Guan v. Republic, L-15691, March 27, 1961; Lim Hok Albano v. Republic, L-10912, October 31, 1958)." (Emphasis supplied.)
Going now into the substance of the case, the record shows that in 1953, before the petitioner filed his application for naturalization, he left the Philippines for Hongkong to get married. After his marriage he went to Hongkong several times during which he sired three children. This took place, apparently, within the ten-year period required of him to reside in the Philippines. The law requires that any applicant for naturalization should not leave the country during the said period of residence. Besides, petitioner’s conduct of keeping his wife and children in a neighboring country and merely visiting them shows his lack of sincere desire to establish himself as a Filipino citizen and to embrace the customs and traditions of the Filipinos, (Sy See v. Republic, L-17025, May 30, 1962)
The above circumstances being sufficient to disqualify the applicant from becoming a citizen of the Philippines, there is no necessity of passing upon the other issues raised.
Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby reversed with costs against the Petitioner-Appellee.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, J.P. and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
Zaldivar, J., took no part.
