G.R. No. L-20145 June 30, 1965
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG SO TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ONG SO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On January 27, 1960, the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the petition for naturalization of Ong So. Two years later, on February 17, 1962, Ong So presented his evidence under Section 1 of Republic Act No. 530. The government filed an opposition to his oath-taking on February 20, 1962, alleging he had not enrolled all his school-age children in qualified schools and did not have lucrative employment. The court reopened the case for oath-taking on February 27, 1962, and on March 2, 1962, issued an order allowing and immediately administering the oath to Ong So. The government moved for reconsideration on March 29, 1962. Without setting aside the oath, the court reopened the case for further evidence. On May 12, 1962, the court denied the government’s opposition and maintained its March 2 order. The Republic appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in allowing Ong So to take his oath of allegiance despite allegedly not possessing all legal qualifications and not complying with Republic Act No. 530.
2. Whether the lower court erred in precipitately administering the oath before the expiration of the government’s period to appeal.
3. Whether the lower court erred in not dismissing the petition.

RULING

The Supreme Court found merit in the appeal and reversed the lower court.
1. The Court held that Ong So failed to comply with the legal requirement of enrolling all his minor children of school age in qualified Philippine schools. His petition itself stated that his two older children, Ong Hu and Ong Tiak, born in 1948 and 1949, were residing in Hong Kong and were not enrolled in Philippine schools upon reaching school age (7). Enrollment at a later age does not satisfy the statute. The Court also found that Ong So did not possess a lucrative trade, profession, or occupation at the time of his application in 1959. His tax return showed an income of P4,800.00 for that year, which was insufficient to decently support his wife and five children. Contingent income like bonuses and commissions does not constitute dependable remuneration for this purpose.
2. The Court ruled that the lower court’s act of allowing and administering the oath just three days after the government’s opposition and before the Solicitor General even received a copy of the appealed order was highly irregular. Republic Act No. 530 contemplates the applicant becoming entitled to citizenship privileges upon taking the oath; such precipitate administration appeared to be an attempt to render the government’s appeal nugatory.
The appealed order allowing the oath, the oath administered, and any corresponding certificate of citizenship were declared null and void. Costs were assessed against appellee Ong So.