G.R. No. L-7301; April 20, 1955
In the matter of the petition of TIU SAN alias ANGEL GOMEZ to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. TIU SAN, alias ANGEL GOMEZ, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

The Court of First Instance of Quezon Province rendered a decision on July 13, 1950, authorizing the naturalization of Tiu San, alias Angel Gomez. Over two years later, on or about May 25, 1953, Tiu San filed a petition praying that, after due hearing pursuant to Republic Act No. 530 , the corresponding certificate of naturalization be issued. After the hearing, the court issued an order dated June 3, 1953, denying this petition. The denial was based on Tiu San having been convicted on April 25, 1952, of a violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 14, series of 1946, of the Municipality of Lucena, Province of Quezon, for his failure to remove and transfer his lumber yard from a prohibited zone. He was sentenced to pay a fine of P50.00. Tiu San appealed from said order.

ISSUE

Whether appellant’s conviction for violation of a municipal ordinance constitutes an infringement of the third clause of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530 , which bars the issuance of a certificate of naturalization if the applicant has “been convicted of any offense or violation of Government promulgated rules” during the intervening two-year period after the decision granting naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the petition for the issuance of the certificate of naturalization. The Court held:
1. A municipal ordinance enacted in the exercise of police power (such as the zoning ordinance violated by petitioner) is a “government promulgated rule” under Republic Act No. 530 . Municipal corporations, when exercising governmental powers like police power, act as agencies of the national government.
2. The third clause of Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530 applies whenever the applicant is “convicted of any offense” within the two-year period from the promulgation of the decision granting naturalization. The law uses the word “convicted,” not “committed,” and the commission of the offense need not occur within said period. The Act, by its express provision (Section 4), applies retrospectively to cases where the applicant has not yet taken the oath of citizenship.
3. Republic Act No. 530 makes no distinction between acts mala in se and mala prohibita; the phrase “convicted of any offense” includes both classes. The appellant’s plea of guilt in the criminal case, which alleged his “deliberate intent” and willful failure to comply, negated his claim of good faith. Furthermore, the offense was committed continuously from April 30, 1950, up to at least January 7, 1952, which was within the two-year period after the July 13, 1950 decision.
Therefore, the conviction disqualified Tiu San from receiving his certificate of naturalization under Republic Act No. 530 .