G.R. No. L-26327 October 16, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF FELICIANO T. TAN, TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor.

FACTS

Petitioner Feliciano T. Tan, a Chinese citizen born on June 9, 1931, in Larena, Oriental Negros, filed a petition for naturalization on June 16, 1961. He alleged he was single, worked as a salesman in Manila with a monthly salary of two hundred pesos, possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization, and was exempt from filing a declaration of intention. The petition stated he had resided continuously in the Philippines for over thirty years and at the Municipality of Larena, Oriental Negros. The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition, leading to a decision by the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros granting the petition. The Republic appealed, assigning several errors.

ISSUE

The main issues raised by the Republic were: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction given petitioner’s lack of one-year residence in Oriental Negros immediately before filing the petition; (2) whether the trial court erred in allowing witnesses not enumerated in the petition to testify; (3) whether the petition was fatally defective for failing to state all of petitioner’s former places of residence; and (4) whether petitioner had a lucrative income.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and dismissed the petition for naturalization. The Court found the first, third, and fourth assignments of error meritorious. On the first issue, the record showed petitioner had been residing in Manila since March 1960, up to and during the hearing, meaning he did not have the requisite one-year residence in Oriental Negros immediately preceding the filing of his petition on June 21, 1961. This violated the Revised Naturalization Law, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction. On the third issue, the petition failed to state all petitioner’s former places of residence, which included Larena (1931-1947), Dumaguete (1947-1949), Manila (1949-1951), Dumaguete City (1951-1952), Cebu City (1952-1954), and Manila again (from March 1960). This omission was a fatal defect affecting the court’s authority. On the fourth issue, petitioner’s income of two hundred pesos per month was not considered lucrative according to the standard set in previous decisions. The second assignment of error was not addressed as the others were dispositive. Costs were imposed on petitioner.