GR 26820; (July, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26820 July 31, 1970
In the Matter of the Petition for Naturalization of FRANCISCO YAP @ FRANCISCO YAP Y UYSECO, FRANCISCO YAP @ FRANCISCO YAP Y UYSECO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco Yap, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization. He was born in Candelaria, Quezon, on March 24, 1930, and had resided in the Philippines since birth, including in Manila for more than a year before filing. He was married with six children, three of school age. He claimed an average annual income of about P6,000.00 as a factory supervisor at the time of filing. Two witnesses testified to his good moral character. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted his petition on October 17, 1961. The Government did not appeal this decision. Later, on November 19, 1963, Yap filed a petition to take his oath of citizenship. The Solicitor General opposed, alleging he used several aliases without judicial authority and was not of good moral character. The lower court overruled the opposition and granted the oath-taking on July 8, 1964. The Republic appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in allowing petitioner Francisco Yap to take his oath of allegiance, considering the grounds raised by the Solicitor General regarding his use of aliases, lack of lucrative income, and moral character.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s order, DISMISSED the petition for naturalization, and declared the oath of allegiance taken without force and effect.
The Court held:
1. The petitioner admitted using various aliases without judicial authority (e.g., Francisco Yap Uyseco, Francisco Yap, Francisco Sia Yap, Francisco Y. Uyseco), which violated the Anti-Alias Law. This demonstrated a failure to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable manner as required by the Naturalization Law. Furthermore, the alias “Francisco Sia Yap” was omitted from the petition and the published notice of hearing, a fatal omission.
2. The requirement of a lucrative income is determined as of the date of filing the petition. Petitioner’s income was P6,000.00 per annum in 1960. The Court cited precedent that an income of P6,300.00 for an applicant supporting a wife and child was insufficient. Petitioner, supporting a wife and six children, was in an even less favorable position.
3. The contention that the grounds for appeal should have been raised before the judgment is without merit. A naturalization case involves public interest, and the entire record remains open for scrutiny on appeal from the main decision or in the oath-taking proceeding.