GR 22302; (January, 1971) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22302, January 30, 1971
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF CHIU TEK YE. CHIU TEK YE, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner-appellant Chiu Tek Ye filed a petition for naturalization in 1954. The petition was granted by the trial court in 1958, and he was later authorized to take his oath in 1963. However, the Solicitor General filed a motion to vacate these decisions, arguing the petition was fatally defective. The trial court granted the motion, dismissed the petition, and denied subsequent motions for reconsideration.
The petition suffered from multiple substantive deficiencies. It failed to allege that petitioner was of good moral character. It omitted a statement of his residence in Zamboanguita, Negros Oriental, during the Japanese occupation, preventing verification of his conduct during that period. It did not contain an averment of exemption from filing a declaration of intention, which he claimed based on over thirty years of residence. Furthermore, the petition was not accompanied by a certificate of arrival as required by law.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Chiu Tek Ye’s petition for naturalization due to fatal defects in its substance and compliance with procedural requirements.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Naturalization is a privilege demanding strict compliance with statutory requirements, which are jurisdictional. The petition’s failure to allege good moral character was a fatal omission, as this is a fundamental qualification. The absence of an allegation regarding residence during the Japanese occupation deprived the government of the opportunity to investigate his conduct during a critical historical period, which is essential for assessing character.
The claim of exemption from filing a declaration of intention must be expressly pleaded in the petition; its omission cannot be cured later. An attempt to amend this defect would constitute a new petition requiring republication. The lack of a certificate of arrival attached to the petition was another fatal flaw, as its purpose is to prevent illegally entering aliens from naturalizing. Petitioner’s explanation for its absence was unacceptable.
Additionally, petitioner failed to prove a lucrative income. His reported earnings, even when combined with alleged additional income from family members, were deemed insufficient to adequately support his large family, which included his wife, multiple children, and a dependent mother-in-law. Consequently, the cumulative effect of these substantive and procedural defects rendered the petition void and justified its dismissal.