G.R. No. L-28706. January 30, 1971.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. MACDUFFIE TAN alias MACARIO ONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Macduffie Tan, alias Macario Ong, filed a petition for naturalization. The Court of First Instance of Agusan rendered a decision on December 10, 1963, amended on January 22, 1964, granting his petition. Subsequently, on January 20, 1966, he filed a petition to take the oath of allegiance. The lower court granted this petition via an order dated February 3, 1966, and allowed him to take the oath on the same day. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in granting the petition to take the oath of allegiance and in allowing its immediate administration, considering alleged fatal defects in the original naturalization application.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and dismissed the petition. The legal logic is twofold. First, the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 , as amended. His application stated his present residence as Butuan City and a former residence as Tangub, Misamis Occidental. However, the records, which he admitted, showed he had also resided in Cebu City. This omission in his application is a fatal defect that violates the law and even affects the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Second, the petitioner lacked the requisite lucrative income at the time of his application. His application, filed in April 1962, stated an average annual income of P2,400.00 for a married man with two children, which was not lucrative. While he later testified to an increased income and an alleged donation of property from relatives, these subsequent events are immaterial. The qualifications of an applicant are determined as of the date of filing the application. Moreover, the alleged donation was legally inexistent for non-compliance with the formalities for donating immovable property. Even considering his later income of P500.00 monthly, it was still not lucrative for a man with a wife and three children. Finally, the Court noted it was improper for the lower court to allow the oath-taking immediately upon issuing the order, as such an order is appealable and the oath should not be administered before the expiration of the period to perfect an appeal. Consequently, the oath taken and any certificate of naturalization issued were declared null and void.