G.R. No. L-29200. May 31, 1971.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHUA BON CHIONG alias ANG BON CHIONG TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZENEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHUA BON CHIONG alias ANG BON CHIONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Chua Bon Chiong, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Cebu. He presented evidence of his qualifications, including his continuous residence since 1938, educational attainment, employment as a sales representative on a commission basis, and good moral character. The trial court granted his petition in a 1963 decision. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, did not appeal this decision. In 1966, after the mandatory two-year period, petitioner moved for the final hearing to take his oath of allegiance. The trial court issued an order allowing him to take his oath. The Republic then appealed this order, arguing various deficiencies in the petition, including lack of lucrative income and failure to secure permission from the Chinese government to renounce his citizenship.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court can review the entire record of the naturalization proceedings upon appeal from the order allowing the taking of the oath, and whether petitioner had satisfactorily proven all statutory qualifications for naturalization.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and order, denying the petition for naturalization. The Court held that a naturalization proceeding is imbued with public interest, and the burden of proof rests entirely on the applicant to show full compliance with the law. An appeal from the order authorizing the oath-taking subjects the entire proceedings to judicial scrutiny, allowing the Court to review all aspects of the case, even those not raised in the opposition or briefs. Here, petitioner failed to meet essential qualifications. First, his income derived solely from sales commissions and bonuses was deemed speculative, nebulous, and unstable, failing to constitute the “lucrative income” required by law. Second, he did not present clear evidence that he had secured the requisite permission from the Minister of Interior of the Republic of China to renounce his Chinese citizenship. This requirement, established in prior jurisprudence, is necessary to prevent dual allegiance and ensure the applicant’s sincere intent to transfer loyalty exclusively to the Philippines. These fatal deficiencies, discovered upon the Court’s comprehensive review, warranted the denial of citizenship.