Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1970 > May 1970 Decisions > G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-26970. May 29, 1970.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE BORROMEO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch IV, Cebu City, and VIDASTO TIU, Respondents.

Assistant Solicitor General Frine’ C. Zaballero and Solicitor Jaime M. Lantin for Petitioner.

Eriberto Seno and Jalandoni & Jamir for respondent Vidasto Tiu.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; NATURALIZATION; NON-INCLUSION IN PUBLICATION OF PETITION OF APPLICANT’S NAME; FATAL. — The non-inclusion in the petition, as published, of the other name by which herein applicant was known at one time or another, made the publication of his application for citizenship defective, a deficiency that practically deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXPLANATION IN INSTANT CASE. — The explanation of applicant that his other name omitted in the publication was only used in his Chinese class is overruled and does not obviate the fact that, by such omission in the publication, people who might have known him as such were deprived of the opportunity to come to court and testify on what they knew and could say of him.

3. ID.; ID.; REQUIREMENT OF DECLARATION OF INTENTION; APPLICANT NOT EXEMPTED. — Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law requires of every applicant the filing in the of office of the Solicitor General, one year prior to the presentation of the petition in court, of a declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, unless such applicant is by law exempted from the requirement. Such exemption is only granted to aliens that were born in the Philippines and who have received their primary and secondary education in Philippine public schools or recognized private educational institutions not limited to any race or nationality. Applicant herein is not within the exempted class.

4. ID.; ID.; ORDER GRANTING PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP WITH JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS; SUBJECT OF CERTIORARI PROCEEDINGS. — The court below having been duly apprised by the oppositor, Republic of the Philippines, of the foregoing jurisdictional defects, its issuance of the disputed orders suffers from infirmity, making it a proper subject of certiorari proceeding.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ELEVATION OF RECORDS NOT NECESSARY. — Where, as in this case, the incorrectness and invalidity of the lower court’s decision granting Philippine citizenship to an alien is evident from the paper available to us even without the elevation of the records of the original proceeding, it becomes immaterial whether the issue of the qualifications of the applicant have been brought to this Court by means of a special civil action or an ordinary appeal.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Once more in this petition for certiorari filed by the Republic of the Philippines against the orders of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (in Nat. Case No. 752), dated 16 June 1966 1 and 27 October 1966, 2 we find occasion to reemphasize the need for close and jealous scrutiny by trial court of alien’s petitions for the privilege of naturalization as Filipino citizens, as well as of the evidence submitted to support the same, even in the absence of opposition thereto.

On 9 July 1962, Vidasto Tiu, a Chinese citizen, filed in the Cebu Court of First Instance a petition for citizenship (Nat. Case No. 752) stating, inter alia, that he was single, born in Cebu City on 2 February 1939; that he was a salesman and insurance underwriter, with an annual income of P4,200.00; that he did not file a declaration of intention because he was born in the Philippines. The petition was duly published, and later on heard by the court. On 30 September 1963, upon the evidence received, the court rendered judgment, granting the petition and admitting applicant Tiu to Philippine citizenship. No appeal from the said decision was taken by the State.

On 8 November 1965, the applicant moved to set the case for final hearing preparatory to his taking the corresponding oath. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General’s office, then opposed the motion and prayed for the setting aside of the decision of 30 September 1963. It was alleged that the petition was fatally defective, because applicant was not exempt from filing a declaration of intention, and that he had also used the name Tiu Yee Sing, which did not appear in the published petition. When this opposition as well as the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the oppositor were denied by the lower court, in its orders of 16 June 1966 and 27 October 1966, the Republic of the Philippines resorted to the present proceeding, raising the same issue of the defective petition and inadequacy of the publication rendering the respondent court without jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s motion for final hearing and to allow the latter to take the oath.

We find the petition meritorious.

It is not denied that when applicant Tiu was studying in the Cebu Chinese High School, he had been using also the name Tiu Yee Sing, which did not appear in the petition or in its publication. The explanation of applicant is that said name was only used in his Chinese class, whereas he was known in his English class as Vidasto Tiu; that after he had left the Cebu Chinese High School he had consistently used Vidasto Tiu in school (University of San Carlos and Cebu Institute of Technology) and in his business dealings; that Tiu Yee Sing was not included in the published petition because he had long ago dropped and abandoned that name. All that, even if true, does not obviate the fact that, by such omission in the publication, people who might have known him as Tiu Yee Sing were deprived of the opportunity to come to court and testify on what they knew and could say of him. 3 Thus, in Wong Chui v. Republic, L-23855, 24 April 1967, 19 SCRA 805, we overruled a similar explanation that the omitted name was only given to the applicant by his father when he first entered school, following the Chinese custom of choosing for a child an appropriate name on such an important occasion as the start of schooling. There we held that the use of such other name constituted a violation of the Anti-Alias Law (Com. Act 142) and warrants the denial of the application for admission to Philippine citizenship. 4 We declare, therefore, that the non-inclusion in the petition, as published, of the other name, Tiu Yee Sing, by which herein applicant was known at one time or another, made the publication of his application for citizenship defective, a deficiency that practically deprived the court of jurisdiction over the case. 5

Besides, there is non-compliance with Section 5 of the Revised Naturalization Law that requires of every applicant the filing in the office of the Solicitor General, one year prior to the presentation of the petition in court, of a declaration of his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, unless such applicant is by law exempted from the requirement. Such exemption is only granted to aliens that were born in the Philippines and who have received their primary and secondary education in Philippine public schools or recognized private educational institutions not limited to any race or nationality. Applicant herein is not within the exempted class.

While the applicant’s birth in the Philippines, in the absence of record in the civil registry which was destroyed (Exhibit I), may be considered to have been established by the affidavit and testimony in court of Dr. Gil Ramas, the physician who attended the delivery of the applicant, there is lack of proof that the educational requirement has been satisfied. It appears that applicant Tiu completed primary and secondary education in the Cebu Chinese High School during the school years 1953-54 and 1957-58, respectively. 6 There is, to be sure, a certification by the Regional Superintendent of the Bureau of Private Schools, Central Visayas District, dated 4 March 1966, 7 that the Cebu Eastern Institute (formerly the Cebu Chinese High School) has been admitting Filipino students and employing Filipino teachers; and applicant has likewise submitted an unverified statement by the director of the said school which indicates the number of Filipino and Chinese students enrolled therein from the school year 1958-1959 to 1965-1966. But it is to be noted that these certifications do not cover the period when applicant was taking his primary and secondary courses, up to 1958 (Exhibit T), and, therefore, there is no proof that the applicant received primary and secondary schooling in an educational institution regularly attended by a sizeable number of Filipino students from whom he could have imbibed or assimilated Filipino customs and traditions, in addition to learning the basic courses in Philippine history and civics. 8 Moreover, the same unverified statements or certifications alone would be insufficient to establish the percentages of Filipinos and Chinese in the student population; not having been presented in court to stand the cross examination of the counsel for the State, and the scrutiny and observation of the trial court, the certification of officials of the school under consideration amounts to nothing more than self-serving or hearsay evidence. 9 Considering the mandatory character of the requirement on the filing of a declaration of intention, applicant’s failure to comply with it is fatal to his petition, 10 since he was not legally exempt from the requirement of the law.

The court below having been duly apprised by the oppositor, Republic of the Philippines, of the foregoing jurisdictional defects, its issuance of the disputed order suffers from infirmity, making it a proper subject of certiorari proceeding. And where, as in this case, the incorrectness and invalidity of the lower court’s decision granting Philippine citizenship to an alien is evident from the papers available to us, even without the elevation of the records of the original proceeding, it becomes immaterial whether the issue of the qualifications of the applicant have been brought to this Court by means of a special civil action or an ordinary appeal.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the orders of the lower court of 15 June 1966 and 27 October 1966 are hereby reversed and set aside, and the application of Vidasto Tiu to be admitted to Philippine citizenship is ordered disapproved. No costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, and Villamor, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., is on leave.

Barredo, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Denying the motion of the Republic of the Philippines to set aside the court’s decision of 30 September 1963, granting the application for naturalization of Vidasto Tiu and opposing his oath-taking as citizen of the Philippines. .

2. Denying the State’s motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned order of 15 June 1966.

3. Chuah Tak Seng v. Republic, L-21599, 29 October 1966, 18 SCRA 595, and cases therein cited.

4. See also Chan v. Republic, L-22352, 30 June 1966, 17 SCRA 474; Go Tian An v. Republic, L-19833, 31 August 1966, 17 SCRA 1053.

5. Yu Nam v. Republic, L-20016, 29 April 1966, 16 SCRA 733. Also, Yu Seco v. Republic, L-13441, 30 June 1960.

6. Exhibit "T."cralaw virtua1aw library

7. Annex "A," page 138, CFI Record.

8. Lee Ng Len v. Republic, L-20151, 31 March 1965, 13 SCRA 532; Te Poot v. Republic, L-20017, 28 March 1969, 27 SCRA 644.

9. Te Poot v. Republic, supra.

10. Uy Boco v. Republic, 85 Phil. 320; Son v. Republic, 87 Phil. 666; Uy Yap v. Republic, 91 Phil. 914; Dy v. Republic, 92 Phil. 278; Yu v. Republic, 92 Phil. 804; De la Cruz v. Republic, 92 Phil. 714; Tan v. Republic, 94 Phil. 882; Ong Khan v. Republic, L-14866, 28 October 1960; Yap v. Republic, L-12938, 31 July 1961; Lim Cho Kuan v. Republic, L-21198, 22 January 1966, 16 SCRA 25; Lim v. Republic, L-20804, 22 January 1966, 16 SCRA 12.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1970 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-29155 May 13, 1970 - UNIVERSAL FOOD CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24995 May 27, 1970 - REPUBLIC COMMODITIES CORPORATION v. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27344 May 28, 1970 - MAXIMA B. ARCOS, ET AL. v. JULIAN ARDALES

  • G.R. No. L-27704 May 28, 1970 - ABELARDO SUBIDO v. RAPAEL MISON, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27832 May 28, 1970 - CARLOS V. MATUTE v. JOSE S. MATUTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27610 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO EMPEÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22470 May 28, 1970 - SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL v. BINALBAGAN-ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-24456 May 28, 1970 - LINO VICTORINO, ET AL. v. HONORIA LAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25906 May 28, 1970 - PEDRO D. DIOQUINO v. FEDERICO LAUREANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26931 May 28, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORADOR S. PINGOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27022 May 28, 1970 - RADIOWEALTH TRADING CORPORATION v. AIDA L. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-25147 May 29, 1970 - ANGELINA MAQUILING v. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25326 May 29, 1970 - IGMIDIO HIDALGO, ET AL. v. POLICARPIO HIDALGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21576 May 29, 1970 - MUNICIPALITY OF PAETE v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22439 May 29, 1970 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23560 May 29, 1970 - MARIA CONSUELO IGNACIO v. PASTOR MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24592 May 29, 1970 - NORTHWEST AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24781 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26632 May 29, 1970 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26970 May 29, 1970 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BORROMEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26890-92 May 29, 1970 - NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNIONS v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27124 May 29, 1970 - FRANCISCO COLMENARES v. ARTURO P. VILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27493 May 29, 1970 - SAN BEDA COLLEGE v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-27830 May 29, 1970 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONG DIN CHU

  • G.R. No. L-29116 May 29, 1970 - JUAN B. ESPE v. CENTRAL COOPERATIVE EXCHANGE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-29138 May 29, 1970 - ELENA CONTRERAS v. CESAR J. MACARAIG

  • G.R. No. L-29306 May 29, 1970 - CONSUELO S. GONZALES-PRECILLA v. JAIME ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30369 May 29, 1970 - SATURNINO A. TANHUECO v. ANDRES AGUILAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26901 May 29, 1970 - SOUTH SEA SURETY AND INSURANCE CO., INC., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21727 May 29, 1970 - CRISPINA SALAZAR v. GUILLERMO GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21938-39 May 29, 1970 - VICENTE URIARTE v. CFI OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26600 May 29, 1970 - EMILIANO PIELAGO, ET AL. v. RECAREDO ECHAVEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26629 May 29, 1970 - NGO DY v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-27816 May 29, 1970 - FEDERICO AGUILAR v. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28014-15 May 29, 1970 - MARCELO LANDINGIN, ET AL. v. PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19835 May 29, 1970 - WILFREDO LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20604 May 29, 1970 - EDUARDO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21644 May 29, 1970 - WENCESLAO PASCUAL v. PILAR BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25352 May 29, 1970 - JOSE MARIA SALVADOR, ET AL. v. ROSENDO FRIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25803 May 29, 1970 - LUZ PICAR, ET AL. v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26838 May 29, 1970 - TOMAS BESA v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27126 May 29, 1970 - LOU C. LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27585 May 29, 1970 - PROGRESSIVE LABOR ASSOCIATION v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28074 May 29, 1970 - NORTHERN MOTORS, INC. v. CASIANO SAPINOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29132 May 29, 1970 - JOSE YAP JOAQUIN, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31135 May 29, 1970 - DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. JOSE A. ALIGAEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31558 May 29, 1970 - RASID LUCMAN v. MACACUNA DIMAPURO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26681 May 29, 1970 - JOSE CALACDAY, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27562 May 29, 1970 - ROMULO A. YARCIA v. CITY OF BAGUIO