G.R. No. L-27429, August 27, 1969
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION AS CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. OH HEK HOW, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Oh Hek How was granted Philippine citizenship via a decision on January 16, 1964. On January 17, 1966, he filed a motion alleging compliance with Republic Act No. 530 and prayed to take his oath of allegiance. On February 9, 1966, based on his testimony, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte issued an order authorizing the oath, which he took on the same day, and a certificate of naturalization was issued. The Government seasonably appealed from the February 9, 1966 order. Before the record on appeal was approved, the Government moved to cancel the certificate, arguing it was issued before the order became final. On October 3, 1966, the court granted the motion but authorized a new oath after 30 days’ notice. On November 26, 1966, the court approved the record on appeal and again authorized a new oath. Petitioner took a second oath on November 28, 1966.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court retained jurisdiction to authorize a new oath after the Government’s appeal.
2. Whether petitioner possessed a lucrative income as required by naturalization laws.
3. Whether petitioner’s failure to secure permission from Nationalist China’s Minister of the Interior for renunciation of his Chinese citizenship bars his naturalization.

RULING

1. No. The lower court lost jurisdiction over the case upon the Government’s seasonable appeal. The order of February 9, 1966, had not become final. The second oath taken on November 28, 1966, and the corresponding certificate, were null and void as they occurred after the filing of the notice of appeal, submission, and approval of the record on appeal.
2. No. Petitioner’s net income (P3,945.65 in 1960, P5,105.79 in 1961, and P6,485.50 in 1962) for a married man with three children, one of school age, was not lucrative. Precedent established that similar or higher annual incomes for individuals with dependents were not considered lucrative.
3. Yes. A Chinese national cannot be naturalized as a Philippine citizen without first complying with the laws of Nationalist China requiring the permission of its Minister of the Interior for renunciation of nationality. Philippine law requires absolute renunciation of foreign allegiance, and how a Chinese citizen divests himself of that status is governed by Chinese law pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of the Civil Code. The ruling in Go A. Leng v. Republic, which required such permission, superseded contrary views.
The Supreme Court REVERSED the appealed order and declared the oath of allegiance taken on November 28, 1966, and the corresponding certificate of naturalization NULL and VOID. Petitioner was ordered to surrender the certificate to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte within ten days after the decision became final.