SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30669 July 31, 1970

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF BETTY PO (Betty Po Lim-marital name) to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

DIZON, J.:

Appeal taken by the Republic of the Philippines from an order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo dated September 13, 1968 allowing Betty Po Lim to take the oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after the lapse of thirty (30) days from the promulgation thereof.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On July 31, 1965 appellee, a native born Chinese woman married to Lim Son Hue, also a registered Chinese subject, filed with the lower court a petition for admission as Citizen of the Philippines under Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After due hearing the lower court granted the petition on August 30, 1966. The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied on December 12 of the same year.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On August 7, 1968 appellee filed a motion praying that she be allowed to take the oath of allegiance under the provisions of Republic Act 530, and on September 13 of the same year the lower court, notwithstanding the opposition filed by the Republic, issued the appealed order.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The only question now raised by the Republic is whether a Chinese woman may be lawfully naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines separately from her husband - also a citizen of the Republic of China.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is not disputed that appellee was married to Lim Son Hue in Iloilo City on December 25, 1960, that is, four years and a half prior to the filing of her application for naturalization. Out of their marriage they begot two children, the first born on October 11, 1962 and the second on May 8, 1963.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is clear, therefore, that upon her marriage, appellee aside from being a Chinese citizen by birth and parentage, became a Chinese citizen by marriage in accordance with the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 2 of the Chinese Law of Naturalization.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Upon the other hand, Commonwealth Act No. 63, a Filipino woman loses her citizenship upon contracting marriage to an alien if by virtue of the laws in force in her husbands country she acquires the latter's nationality.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Appellant being a Chinese citizen by birth and marriage can not become a citizen of the Philippines during coverture because, as long as her marriage to an alien subsists, she must by our laws have the same citizenship as that of her husband.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is true, as appellee contends, that our Naturalization Law does not say that only male alien persons may seek citizenship by naturalization, but in construing this provision We must necessarily take into account other legal provisions on the subject of citizenship, one of them being the one mentioned heretofore, according to which a Filipino female citizen who marries an alien acquires the latter's citizenship by the mere fact of her marriage. The granting of citizenship by naturalization to a female alien applicant while her marriage to another alien is subsisting would, therefore, be inoperative for the reason that, such grant notwithstanding, she would still be deemed to be a citizen of the country of her husband. The result would be dual citizenship which, it is believed, is not contemplated by our laws.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the appealed order is reversed and set aside, with costs.