GR L 14860; (May, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14860, May 30, 1961
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION TO PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP, ZACARIAS G. TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Zacarias G. Tan, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition for naturalization. His original petition failed to allege his educational qualifications, which are material for determining if he was exempt from filing a prior declaration of intention. Upon the Republic’s motion, the lower court ordered the petition amended. Tan complied by adding an allegation that he had completed his elementary and secondary education in government-recognized schools. The court admitted this amended petition without ordering its republication, despite the original petition having been duly published in the Official Gazette and a newspaper. After trial, the lower court granted Tan’s petition, finding him qualified and possessing a lucrative income of P120 monthly as an employee.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether the lower court acquired jurisdiction over the amended petition without republication; and (2) whether Tan possessed a lucrative occupation qualifying him for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the amendment, which introduced the material fact of educational attainment granting exemption from filing a declaration of intention, was substantial. Republic Act No. 530 mandates publication of the petition and a six-month waiting period before hearing to inform the public and allow them to supply relevant information to the government. Failure to republish the amended petition deprived the court of jurisdiction, as established in Kiat Chun Tan vs. Republic.
On the merits, the Court found Tan failed to prove a lucrative occupation. His sole evidence of a P120 monthly income was his own testimony and an unsworn certification from his father, who was also his alleged employer. This evidence was deemed incompetent, being hearsay and unsworn. The familial employment arrangement, while living together, cast doubt on the bona fides and stability of the employment. Moreover, even if accepted, such an income was not considered lucrative given the prevailing high cost of living, consistent with precedents like Swee Din Tan vs. Republic. The dispositive portion of the decision was also defective for implying naturalization could proceed without waiting the mandatory two-year period. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.