GR L 19899; (March, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19899 March 18, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF TAN TIAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. TAN TIAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner-appellee Tan Tian filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, which was granted. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision. The Solicitor General raised three main grounds for opposition: 1) Tan Tian failed to state his former places of residence in his petition, mentioning only his present residence in Candon, Ilocos Sur. Evidence showed he previously resided in Tubao, La Union (in 1940), Bauguen, Ilocos Sur, Panangaan, Mountain Province, and must have resided in Manila upon his arrival in the Philippines in 1927. 2) He did not show a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals, as four of his children were enrolled at the Ilocos Sur Chinese School, two at the La Union Chinese School, and his eldest daughter finished secondary course at Chiang Kai Shek High School in Manila. 3) He did not have a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation. While he claimed assets of P75,000.00 and gross receipts of P464,358.88 for 1960, his income tax returns showed net incomes of only P10,510.54 (1958), P9,922.37 (1959), and P8,774.20 (1960). He had eleven children, nine of whom were schooling.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in granting Tan Tian’s petition for naturalization.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and dismissed Tan Tian’s petition for naturalization. The Court held that: 1) The failure to allege former places of residence in the application is fatal, as consistently held in prior jurisprudence. 2) Enrolling his children in Chinese schools, primarily intended for Chinese students, negates a sincere desire to embrace Filipino customs, traditions, and ideals. 3) Given his large family (eleven children, nine schooling) and the high cost of living, his net income as shown by his tax returns could not be considered lucrative. All three statutory requirements for naturalization were not met.